Birth of Jesus
MrAbcX
without a father. His birth is the result of Immaculate
Conception. His mother Mary was a virgin. Mother Mary never
had marital relationship with anybody.
The Christians all over the world believe exactly the same thing.
In fact, the entire foundation of Christian faith is based on this.
They use this faith to justify his Son of God status. Although a
Muslim would not believe in Son of God theory, yet he believes
everything else the Christians say regarding the Immaculate Conception.
Sunni/shia faith regarding the Immaculate Conception is based on the
Quranic verses that says Jesus is Kalimah of Allah, that he is a
sign of Allah, that his mother is a sign of Allah. Jesus was
created in his mother's womb by a single blow of air or spirit. He
was created by the word 'kun'. Muslims further contend that the
Qur-an never said mother Mary had any matrimonial relationship with
anybody! Not only that, apparently the Quran never mentioned
anything about his father!!!
Today we are going to show you in a step by step approach that
there is nothing extraordinary in the birth of Jesus.
To start with, let us ask a very simple question: 'Did Muhammed
have a father?' I know your answer, YES! Second question, 'How
do you know, was his father's name mentioned in the Quran ?'
If you don't have a ready answer, let us help you. In the entire
Quran, there is absolutely no mention of father of Muhammad. Yet
everyone believes Muhammad did have a father. Fact remains that
the Quran is not the chronology of the family history of all prophets.
However, there is clear mention of the father of prophet Jesus:
In surah An-Aam verse 83-87 Allah mentions names of 18
prophets at a stretch. Of these, verse 85 specifically mentions
name of Isa as: "And Zakariyya, and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas -
everyone was of the righteous." After stating the names of the
18 prophets, in the very next verse we are told:
"And from among their fathers and their descendants and
their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards
the Right Path." 6:87
The Arabic words "Wa min aaba ihim" is critical.
Wa means And, Min means From, Aaba means Fathers, Ihim means
Among theirs. Together: "And from among their fathers".
Muslim scholars are in jeopardy with this statement from God.
They desperately try to justify their faith that Jesus did not
have father. So now they start twisting the meaning and
interpretation.
Let us emphasize that if Jesus did not have a father then the
verse 6:87 should not have included his name or should have
specifically stated that illa Isa or except Isa.
There are several other prophets whose fathers are not
specifically mentioned in the Qur-an , for example, Nuh, Dawud,
Ayyub, Musa, Harun, Zakariya, whose name exists in the list of 18
specifically mentioned in the Qur-an , for example, Nuh, Dawud,
Ayyub, Musa, Harun, Zakariya, whose name exists in the list of 18
prophets in the above verses. Even though we don't find the
mention of fathers of these prophets we believe these prophets
did have fathers. But in case of Jesus sunni/shia make the
exception that he did not have a father. They make this
exception because Bible tells that Jesus did not have a
biological father, and the Quran addresses him as Son of Maryam.
Once the facts are unfolded in front of you, will you be bold
enough to declare or admit (openly of silently) that Yes! I
believe in the declaration of the Quran?
Wherever Allah made exceptions, He did not forget to mention
the fact. Let us explore some of the instances of exceptions
caused by Allah.
1. Allah had saved Nuh and his family from the deluge, but
there was an exception in case of his wife (66:10) and his
son(11:40-43) because they were misguided.
2. Allah saved Lut and his family from destruction, but
there was an exception in case of his wife (7:83; 11:81;
15:59-60; 26:170-171; 27:57; 29:32) because she remained
misguided.
The instances of these exceptions do tell that Allah is not
oblivious to mention any exceptions.
The Quran stated that Jesus is Kalimah of Allah. Based on
this, the sunni try to fool themselves by suggesting that use of
word Kalimah indicate Immaculate Conception was possible. Only
they can tell if they mean the word Kalimah acted as a germ cell,
or a sperm that caused Maryam's pregnancy.
The meaning of Kalimah is "a word", "a decree", "a prophecy", "a
command". Jesus was born as a Kalimah of Allah, in other
words in fulfillment of a prophecy or decree of Allah. Let us read
the verse:
3:34 "O Maryam, surely Allah gives thee glad tidings with a
word (kalimah) from Him, whose name is the Masih Isa, son of Mryam"
4:171 The Masih, - Isa son of Maryam, is but a messenger of
Allah, and His word (kalimah) which He imparted towards Maryam .."
Prophet Yahya .. . do you know that he too is Kalimah of Allah?
In his case the use of the same word Kalimah did not cause a
pregnancy without a conjugal relation. Or was Yahya also born
without a father ?
Allah is talking to Zakariya:.
3:38 Allah indeed gives you glad tidings of Yahya, confirming
the word (kalimah) of Allah ..
After receiving the glad tiding, Zakariya became concerned
because he was old and his wife was barren. He questioned, how
can a son be born to him?
3:39 "My Lord, whence shall there be a son to me, now that
old age has already come upon me and my wife is barren. He replied, "
'likewise' does Allah do what He pleases."
It may sound like as if with the word 'likewise does Allah do what
He pleases', Allah instantly caused pregnancy or created Yahya
out of a thunder. The scholars invented absurd stories at this
juncture and recommended miracles. They try to fool the Muslims
by suggesting that Kalimah alone is sufficient to cause pregnancy
or create a child paranormally. The scholars stop here and refuse
to talk about another supporting verse. What Allah meant by the
word 'likewise' is given elsewhere, in Surah Al-Anbiya verse
21:90.
21:90 So We responded to him and gave him Yahya, and We
cured his wife for him.
To recap, we find that although Yahya is also Kalimah of
Allah, there is nothing unusual or paranormal in his birth. More
precisely saying, Yahya was not conceived without conjugal
relationship of his parents. Allah cured his mother from infertility
so that he could be conceived.
With regards to other uses of the word Kalimah, Allah mentioned
that the whole creation has been created as a manifestation of
His command. You may verify the word in 18:109, 31:27, 6:34,
6:116, 10:64, 18:27 verses.
Isa and Yahya are Kalimah of Allah, just as the rest
of the creations are - they have been born in fulfillment of His
decree or prophecy made to Maryam or Zakariya
respectively. The word Kalimah by itself did not act as germ cell.
Verse 58 of Surah Al-e-Imran is also often used to justify that
Jesus was born without a father. The verse states that the
likeness of Jesus is the likeness of Adam. The
general conclusion of Muslims is that the "likeness" relates to
their unusual birth. They argue that Adam was "born"
without a father and a mother, so it is possible for Jesus to
take birth without a father! This is rather a forced conclusion!
3:58 Verily the likeness of Isa in the sight of Allah is as the
likeness of Adam. He created him out of dust; then He said to him -
'be' and he 'becomes'.
First, let us check what likeness the two prophets might have
regarding birth:
1. Adam is said to have been born without a father and a
mother. So Jesus too should not have a father and a
mother. Absence of only father will not establish the likeness.
2. Jesus is son of Maryam. Adam too should be son
of Maryam, or at least son of a woman. If not, then it is not a true
likeness.
3. Adam was not 'born' - he was created, whereas Jesus
was born. So there is no likeness in birth. Birth is a different
process and creation is a altogether different event. How can the
two be linked and compared?
4. Adam is supposed to have been created a full-grown adult
man. Jesus too should have been born a full-gown adult
man. Since he was born as an infant, there is no likeness in their
creation per se.
5. Adam was supposedly created in the Heaven and sent
down on earth. Jes used. Isa was
created out of turab or dust. Therefore, the likeness of birth
between Isa and Adam is not in the way they were created.
>From this discussion any sensible person can see that likeness
cannot be likened to their birth. There is absolutely no likeness in
the way they were born or created. Adhering to any one likeness
and ignoring all other will be a partisan approach. The verse is not
talking about the likeness of birth - rather the likeness of the two
in general.
Further, note that in the above verse, "He created him out of
dust." Allah is referring to the creation of Isa alone and not
their creation. Here, the word 'him' refers to Isa, who was
created out of dust (turab). Ironically, you will find that all human
being are created from dust (turab) as mentioned in verses 18:37;
22:5; 30:20; 35:11; 40:67). Therefore how is Isa's creation any
different from the creation of human being?
22:5 O you mankind! If you be in doubt as to the Resurrection,
then truly We have created you from dust (turab),then from a sperm,
then from blood-clot,
30:20 And of His Signs is that He has created you from dust
(turab).
40:67 He it is Who has created your from dust (turab), then
>from sperm, then from an embryo.
So the question comes, where is the likeness between Adam and
Jesus? Since there is no likeness on the process of birth, there
has to be likeness after the birth. For example, Adam was
a prophet of Allah, Jesus too was a prophet of Allah (not a
condemned person as claimed by the Jews). Adam had wife
and children, Jesus too had wife and children. Adam
lived his full life, Jesus too lived his full life. Adam
was not killed or crucified, Jesus too could not have been
killed or crucified to death. Adam was buried on earth,
Jesus too was buried on earth. Adam was not raised
alive in the Heaven, Jesus too cannot have been raised
alive to the Heaven.
(more in part 2)....
Altway
news:9tcksv$oci$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> The "Muslims" all over the world believe that Jesus was born
> without a father. His birth is the result of Immaculate
> Conception. His mother Mary was a virgin. Mother Mary never
> had marital relationship with anybody.
..................etc. etc.
Comment:-
The Quran is certainly speaking about spiritual matters rather than
physical.
Most people understand that
the significant thing about the birth of Jesus is that Mary was chaste and
that
Allah placed His Spirit and Word into him.
His physical ancestory is irrelevant.
However,
The Quran does mention Jesus as a descendant of Abraham (6:84-86). The NT
also trace his ancestory back to David through his father Joseph in
fulfilment of the OT prophecy. If Joseph was not his father then, of course,
David could not have been his ancestor and the Prophecy would be false.
It has also been noted by Christian scholars that the word translated as
"virgin" really means "chaste".
Muslims who read the Quran are aware of the following verse.
"Verily the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He
created him from earth, then He said to him: BE! And he was; " 3:59
It does state that he was physically created before his spiritual creation.
This is just like all other human beings:-
""Who made good everything that He has created, and He began the creation of
man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an extract, of a fluid held in
low esteem. Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit, and
made for you the faculties of hearing, and sight and hearts (feeling);
little is it that you give thanks." 32:7-9
But there is no need to make it into a sectarian issue.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understand Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
AbuFour
virgin...does not the Quran say that Mary protested, when the angel told her
that she would give birth that no man had touched her and the angel replied
that for God to decree a matter he simply says "Be" and it is?
So where do you get that Jesus (as) had an earthly father? This isn't Sunni or
Shia or any other sectarian belief, it is the Quran.
Dr. Christoph Heger
Hamid S. Aziz ("Altway" <alt...@freeuk.com>) in his message of 20 Nov
2001 17:30:30 GMT argued:
> Most people understand that the significant thing about the birth of
> Jesus is that Mary was chaste and that Allah placed His Spirit and
> Word into him. His physical ancestory is irrelevant.
I fail to understand how Mary could have been chaste (als the Koran
confirms) if she were no virgin anymore, when she conceived Jesus. So I
fail to understand how Jesus' physical ancestory might be irrelevant.
> The Quran does mention Jesus as a descendant of Abraham (6:84-86).
> The NT also trace his ancestory back to David through his father
> Joseph in fulfilment of the OT prophecy. If Joseph was not his father
> then, of course, David could not have been his ancestor and the Prophecy > would be false.
That's erroneous. David was his legal ancestor through Joseph and his
ancestors and his physical ancestor through Mary and her ancestors (as
the well-known genealogies of Jesus in the Gospel state).
Insofar I don't see any contradiction between the Koran (and popular
Muslim belief) and the Gospel.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
On re-reading what I wrote, I find that it was ambiguous and I need to make
an amendment to my previous post on this subject.
I wrote:- "If Joseph was not his father then, of course, David could not
have been his ancestor and the Prophecy would be false."
What I should have written is :- "If Jesus had been born without a human
father then David could not have been his ancestor and the Prophecy would be
false."
Though his ancestry is traced to David through Mary his mother, we see in
Luke chapter 3 that geneology is traced through the male line. Note also
that Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38. This title is not,
therefore confined to Jesus.
The Quran tells us:-
"And she (Mary) took a veil (to screen herself) from them; and We sent unto
her Our Angel; and he assumed for her the semblance of a perfect man. Said
she, "Verily, I take refuge in the Merciful One from thee, if thou art
god-fearing.
Said he (the Angel): I am only a messenger of thy Lord to bestow on thee a
pure son. Said she (Mary) How can I have a boy when no mortal has touched
me, and when I am not unchaste?
He said: Thus says thy Lord: It is easy for Me! And We will make him a
revelation unto mankind, and a mercy from Us; for it is a thing ordained (or
decreed). So she conceived him, and she retired with him into a remote
place." 19:17-22
According to these verses Mary was a virgin at the time the angel came to
her. But she conceived afterwards. These verses do not tell us how. That is
why I think it is irrelevant.
But I do not think this contradicts the New Testament.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understand Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
MrAbcX
>According to these verses Mary was a virgin at the time the angel came to
>her. But she conceived afterwards. These verses do not tell us how. That is
Yes, that is true. However, the Quran does reveal a bit:
Quran does not clearly say that Mary was married to a man.
The words such as marriage, spouse etc was not specifically used
anywhere with reference to Maryam.
In Surah Al-e-Imran, verses 3:34-44 describes a series of
events starting from the time Maryam was in the womb of her
mother to the point she received the prophecy of giving birth to
Jesus.
Verse 34 narrates the intention of a woman of the family of
Imran, who was the mother of Maryam. This woman decides to
dedicate her child after birth in service of the lord.
Verse 35 narrates the woman delivered a girl child, named her
Maryam and placed the girl-child and future offspring under the
protection of the Lord.
Verse 36 narrates that Maryam was given under the charge of
Zakariya.
Verse 3:36: "and made Zakariya her guardain".
Verse 37 -40 narrates the prayer of Zakariya to have a pious
child like Maryam. Allah assures him about that and gives the
prophecy of birth of Yahya.
Verse 41 & 42 narrates Allah has chosen Maryam as a pious
woman.
Verse 43 narrates how a caretaker of Maryam was selected by
draw of quills (sort of lottery).
Verse 44 narrates the prophecy of birth of Jesus
It is very important to note the continuity of events from birth
of Maryam to the prophecy of birth of Jesus. It is equally
important to note that between the events in two successive
verses there is time lag of several months to several years. For
example, after the incident of the verse 3:34 at least several
months the incident of verse 3:35 took place. Thereafter at least
4 - 5 years (may be less or more) when the incident in the verse
3:36 took place.
Apparently verses 37-40 seems like a break in the sequence, due
to Zakariya's prayer. However, Maryam's keen devotion to the
service of Lord motivated Zakariya to pray for a child of
his own.
Now let us investigate the verses 3:36 and 3:43. According to
the verse 3:36, Maryam was entrusted by her mother to the
charge of Zakariya. Please note Zakariya was already
a prophet. Since it was the will of Maryam's mother to dedicate
Maryam to serve Allah, she was sent to the most appropriate
place for worship, the temple and was placed in care of
temple-in-charge prophet Zakariya. By any sense,
Zakariya, the prophet is the best choice to be the legal
guardian. This verse does not indicate of any controversy as to
whether Zakariya or someone else needs to be the guardian
of Maryam. The verse indicates it was a unanimous decision of
Maryam's mother.
Let us come back to the sequence of events starting from 3:34
up until 3:42. Nowhere the sequence was broken or it jumped one
step backwards or forward. Verse 3:43 is not in direct
continuation of the verse 3:36. Although there was an apparent
break of event right after 3:36 when Zakariya's prayers were
addressed. Please note, Zakariya's prayer was as a result of
observation of ongoing devotion of Maryam. So when the
assignment of guardianship ended with 3:36, different events
continued after 3:36. The topic reverted to Maryam again with
the verses 3:41 and 3:42. However, it did not revert to the issue
of assignment of guardianship to Zakariya. Rather the
verse now talks about Maryam as a woman and Allah has chosen
her as a pious woman. So when 3:43 starts narrating something
hidden and talks about casting of quills by people, it is not
breaking the sequence and jumping backward to an old event of
assignment of previous guardianship. This requires your careful
attention, because many Muslims believe that verse 3:43 is
referring to the event of verse 3:36. Please don't forget that the
events between two successive verses happened after a lapse of
time - few months to few years.
Popular opinion is that people were casting quills to decide who
will take charge of the child-Maryam in verse 3:36. Why should
people be so interested in the child-Maryam? By any sense,
Zakariya, the prophet is the best choice to be the legal
guardian of the child-Maryam. How can general people's claim be
superior to prophet Zakariya as the guardian of a child
devoted to serve the Lord? Besides the time Maryam was
dedicated to Zakariya, she was yet to prove her superior
devotion and she was not a public figure per se. This negates the
need of 'controversy' for guardianship of child-Maryam.
Casting of quills in 3:43 happened when Maryam is a grown-up
woman. If you are not certain, please refer to the previous verse
3:41 where she was referred to as 'woman'.
Behold the angels said. "O Mary! God hath chosen thee
and purified thee - chosen the above the women of all nation.
The casting of quills were done to determine a 'new' guardian for
Maryam. While Zakariya was already her guardian since
childhood, a new guardian at this time is certainly a different type
of guardian - a husband. This is supported by the continuation of
3:43 and 3:44 in succession. After the selection of a 'guardian'
comes the prophecy of childbirth. If Maryam was not a woman in
3:43, then in all likelihood the prophecy in 3:44 came to a
child-Maryam. It is certainly not appropriate for Allah to talk to a
child about childbearing. If you say that between 3:43 and 3:44
there were time gap and by the time 3:44 was conveyed,
Maryam was a woman then it is well and good. Then my question
is that why can there be no time gap between 3:36 and 3:43?
Strangely, 3:41 already says she was a woman then you argue
that in 3:43 she is back to her childhood!
Why Casting of Quills: Obviously many people were interested to
have the 'famous', 'pious' and 'chosen' woman as lawful wife.
However, a decision was difficult to reach, therefore, probable
suitors wanted to leave the decision to Providence by draw of
lottery. Such decision making by way of lottery was in vogue at
that time.
Why Announcement of Hidden: The verse 3:36 says point-blank
that Zakariya was the guardian. Thereafter, what is this so
hush-hush, controversy and hidden about the guardianship? If
the 'announcement about the hidden' is referring to the
guardianship of Zakariya then how is it hidden? It is no
more hidden, the verse 3:36 unambiguously states to that effect.
There can be no valid argument as to why Zakariya's
selection has to be so hush-hush and hidden. On the contrary, if
the verse 3:43 is referring to selection of spouse then
'announcement about the hidden' makes sense. The spouse was
never again hinted in the Quran and the entire fact is still hidden,
except for this subtle reference.
Some Christian and Muslim scholars argue that a married woman
cannot have 'guardian'. This is one of the weirdest arguments.
According to them only a child-Maryam needed a guardian. The
Webster dictionary defines the word guardian as 'one who has
the care of to investigate the events starting from 3:34
to 3:44 again and again, and in particular verses 3:36 and 3:43.
Most Muslims believe that just one guardianship selection took
place. They fail to see that in case of Zakariya the
guardianship was assigned, not selected. Whereas in 3:43, it is
talking of a new guardianship for a grown-up Maryam. Thus the
events in 3:34 - 3:43 clearly indicate Maryam had two different
guardians at two different times in her life.
AbuFour
>her. But she conceived afterwards. These verses do not tell us how. That is
>why I think it is irrelevant.
The whole point of telling us that Mary was a virgin, that she protested having
a child when no man had touched her, and the angel saying it is easy for Allah
(swt) is irrelevant if she was to conceive Jesus (as) eventually in the usual
way.
So...do you think Allah (swt) included irrelevant passages in the Quran?
I don't.
asimm...@yahoo.com
Pecae be upon you,
They also fail to realize that Allah has related the miraculous birth
of John the Baptist in the same surah. Zachariah was surprised that
he could bear a child at such an age. It is no coincidence that the
response the angel gives to him is similar to the response given to
Maryam (AS) when informed of the birth of Jesus (AS). Allah is
showing how the birth of Jesus (AS) is not 'unique' in the sense that
it proves divinity.
What is also even more humourous is that they cannot fathom that the
whole purpose of Maryam fasting and the baby talking is to prove the
miraculousness of the birth of Jesus against the suspicions of the
Jews.
The case of modernism is unique. They claim to follow the Quran, but
merely they follow the modern line of doubt and denial and impose it
upon the clear cut, unambiguous text of the Quran.
Wa salaam
Altway
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9tren0$gdd$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > >According to these verses Mary was a virgin at the time the angel came
to
her. But she conceived afterwards. These verses do not tell us how. That is
why I think it is irrelevant.
> > The whole point of telling us that Mary was a virgin, that she protested
having a child when no man had touched her, and the angel saying it is easy
for
Allah (swt) is irrelevant if she was to conceive Jesus (as) eventually in
the
usual way.
So...do you think Allah (swt) included irrelevant passages in the Quran?
Comment:-
I wrote that the significant thing about the birth of Jesus was that his
mother was chaste and that Jesus was spiritually created. Is this
irrelevant? Did I say that he was or was not born physically in the normal
way?
Why do you require something which the Quran does not state?
Could you not understand?
Will you reject the Quran if Jesus was physically born normally?
Yet no doubt you accuse Christians of requiring the death of Jesus to accept
the Word of God.
> They also fail to realize that Allah has related the miraculous birth
of John the Baptist in the same surah.
> What is also even more humourous is that they cannot fathom that the
whole purpose of Maryam fasting and the baby talking is to prove the
miraculousness of the birth of Jesus against the suspicions of the
Jews.
Comment:-
How do you define a miracle? Is it a spiritual or a physical event?
> The case of modernism is unique. They claim to follow the Quran, but
> merely they follow the modern line of doubt and denial and impose it
> upon the clear cut, unambiguous text of the Quran.
Comment:-
Many people read what is not there, invent their own fantasies, cling to the
superficial and old formulations of others when the language and mades of
thinking have changed, misunderstand, and become superstitious. They then
arrogantly congratulate themselves on being traditionalists. The Taliban are
good examples.
AbuFour
The entire passages about the birth of Jesus (as) is clear that he was created
while his mother was chaste.
>Will you reject the Quran if Jesus was physically born normally?
Of course not, but to believe that he was born with a father like the rest of
us goes against the Quran.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > They also fail to realize that Allah has related the miraculous birth
> of John the Baptist in the same surah.
> > What is also even more humourous is that they cannot fathom that the
> whole purpose of Maryam fasting and the baby talking is to prove the
> miraculousness of the birth of Jesus against the suspicions of the
> Jews.
>
> Comment:-
> How do you define a miracle? Is it a spiritual or a physical event?
>
Wa salaam
The miracle of a Prophet (AS), in ALL instances of the Quran, is an
event which can be perceived by the observer. It is meant to increase
the observers faith in the Messenger and the 'spiritual' claims he is
making, or give evidence of the unbelievers stubborn denial. Though
the Quran wants the person to have an intellectual conviction, the
case of the revelatory period in human history is unique. Those who
directly witness this risalah are exposed to the truth in its ultimate
form, and these signs or miracles are manifested clearly "We gave
Moses nine clear signs" that there is no excuse to deny, and the
punishment of the rejectors becomes inevitable.
> > The case of modernism is unique. They claim to follow the Quran, but
> > merely they follow the modern line of doubt and denial and impose it
> > upon the clear cut, unambiguous text of the Quran.
>
> Comment:-
> Many people read what is not there, invent their own fantasies, cling to the
> superficial and old formulations of others when the language and mades of
> thinking have changed, misunderstand, and become superstitious. They then
> arrogantly congratulate themselves on being traditionalists. The Taliban are
> good examples.
>
And that is one of the faults of traditionalism. But, the clear
evidence of miracles does not signify superstition. The faith of the
believer is rested upon the message and personality of the character
delivering it. If that believer gets the oppurtunity to see and
evidence such a miracle, his faith increases. But those unbelievers,
as the Quran illustrates, increase only in their aversion. The
revelatory period are exceptions in the case of human history, where
the historical evidence that man is accountable for his deeds becomes
manifested for those generations that follow. The existence of
miracles does in no way imply superficial modes of thinking or
fantastic ways of thinking.
The biggest fault of modernism is this specific feature. Denial,
denial, denial of anything that may not be perceived as 'scientific'.
The surah Maryam begins in reference to the miraculousness nature of
the births of Yahya. "How can I have a son when I am of old age and
my wife is barren?" The response given is the same one given when
Maryma (AS) says "How can I have a child when no man has touched me?"
The agony of Maryam (AS) when she realized the accusations she would
have to face resulted in the expression "Would that I have not lived
to see this day?" After these two events Allah goes on a discourse of
monotheism proving the absurdity that the miraculous nature of the
birth of Jesus (AS) proves divinity. On the contrary, Jesus's birth
finds itself well within the power of Allah.
Wa salaam
Altway
news:9u9kks$cet$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > Comment:-
> > How do you define a miracle? Is it a spiritual or a physical event?
> The miracle of a Prophet (AS), in ALL instances of the Quran, is an
> event which can be perceived by the observer. It is meant to increase
> the observers faith in the Messenger and the 'spiritual' claims he is
> making, or give evidence of the unbelievers stubborn denial. Though
> the Quran wants the person to have an intellectual conviction, the
> case of the revelatory period in human history is unique. Those who
> directly witness this risalah are exposed to the truth in its ultimate
> form, and these signs or miracles are manifested clearly "We gave
> Moses nine clear signs" that there is no excuse to deny, and the
> punishment of the rejectors becomes inevitable.
Comment:-
Asalam 'alaikum,
So if I say that Jesus (saw) was sent by God to give us a message from Him
is this not miraculous?
Are we not speaking of the spirit which informs them?
Or do you think it is all about the body which is no different from any
other?
Is that not why Jesus is regarded as a man?
> > Comment:-
> > Many people read what is not there, invent their own fantasies, cling to
the
> > superficial and old formulations of others when the language and mades
of
> > thinking have changed, misunderstand, and become superstitious. They
then
> > arrogantly congratulate themselves on being traditionalists. The Taliban
are
> > good examples.
> And that is one of the faults of traditionalism. But, the clear
> evidence of miracles does not signify superstition. The faith of the
> believer is rested upon the message and personality of the character
> delivering it. If that believer gets the oppurtunity to see and
> evidence such a miracle, his faith increases. But those unbelievers,
> as the Quran illustrates, increase only in their aversion. The
> revelatory period are exceptions in the case of human history, where
> the historical evidence that man is accountable for his deeds becomes
> manifested for those generations that follow. The existence of
> miracles does in no way imply superficial modes of thinking or
> fantastic ways of thinking.
>
> The biggest fault of modernism is this specific feature. Denial,
> denial, denial of anything that may not be perceived as 'scientific'.
Comment:-
You have your own idea of modernism. It consists of a whole set of values.
A common error has been made here:- If something "X", say "Modernism",has
elements
"a", "b", "c", "d", "e" . Then as soon as the critic sees an instance of
element "a", he jumps to the conclusion that it must be "X" . in this case
"modernism". He does so because of emotion, prejudice, fear, desire to boost
his ego, to insult or reduce someone, or some other motive. This what is
called "illusion" - conclusions based on insufficient data. The critic
ignores the fact that there may be many instances of "a" and that other
systems "Y", "Z" etc may have the same elements in them e.g. Traditionalism
might consist of elements "c", "d", "e", "f", "g". "Y" may have "c", "d",
"e", "f" and "Z" might have elements "a", "d", "g", "m" and so on.
Denial of traditionalism is not modernism. Nor is denial of modernism
traditionalism.
This pair of opposites provokes each other into errors. I utterly reject
both extremes.
One ought to be interested only in Truth. And one approaches it gradually by
study and removal of prejudices, addictions, error, fantasies, and
illusions.
Though science tries to find truth, at no time can it be said that all its
pronouncements are true.
Further investigation can at any moment alter this.
But some things must be taken as fundamental truths. The ultimate Truth is
that Allah, the ultimate self-existing Reality IS. And revelation gives us
further information about Allah and provides the fundamental categories of
thought. Other things are dependent on this.
But things can be understood at several levels.
If some statement is meant at one level then understanding it at another
level could well falsify it. This is what happens with symbolic and
allegorical language. Naive and superficial literalism often produces some
bizarre results.
> The surah Maryam begins in reference to the miraculousness nature of
> the births of Yahya. "How can I have a son when I am of old age and
> my wife is barren?" The response given is the same one given when
> Maryma (AS) says "How can I have a child when no man has touched me?"
> The agony of Maryam (AS) when she realized the accusations she would
> have to face resulted in the expression "Would that I have not lived
> to see this day?" After these two events Allah goes on a discourse of
> monotheism proving the absurdity that the miraculous nature of the
> birth of Jesus (AS) proves divinity. On the contrary, Jesus's birth
> finds itself well within the power of Allah.
Comment:-
So you think we have two immaculate conceptions?
Wasalaam,
.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> So if I say that Jesus (saw) was sent by God to give us a message from Him
> is this not miraculous?
> Are we not speaking of the spirit which informs them?
> Or do you think it is all about the body which is no different from any
> other?
> Is that not why Jesus is regarded as a man?
>
Wa alaikum as salaam
The revelation is something beyond the reach of human perception.
"The fuad falsified not what it saw. Do you then dispute with him
concerning what he saw?" The fuad in the Arabic language is used both
for heart and intellect and it implies that the revelatory experience
is so clear there is absolutely no chance of mistaking it for
something else. "They ask you concerning the Spirit. Say, the spirit
is from the command of your Lord. What you have been given of
knowledge is very little."
So yes, the revelation is miraculous, as Abu Bakr (R) said upon
affirming the miraaj of the Prophet (S). But whether or not this has
any relevance to whether or not the miracle was the actual virgin
birth is another.
> > The biggest fault of modernism is this specific feature. Denial,
> > denial, denial of anything that may not be perceived as 'scientific'.
>
> Comment:-
> You have your own idea of modernism. It consists of a whole set of values.
I really do not see the point into getting into such logistical
arguemnts over what is modernism and what is traditionalism. Let's
just say I chose my words badly. Let me rephrase, "The denial of
miracles in the Quran is a striking feature of modernism."
But llike I said before, the belief in miracles does not at all
represent superficial modes of thinking. They are really meant as
shockers, which just defy the imagination. The first manner in which
a person reacts upon seeing a miracle is utter amazement, and awe.
The truth becomes affirmed in their hearts. As the seconds pass and
time moves on, there is the reaction of the Magicians "We believe in
the God of Moses and Aaaron" or there is the reaction of the
unbelievers "This is the work of a magician."
>
> > The surah Maryam begins in reference to the miraculousness nature of
> > the births of Yahya. "How can I have a son when I am of old age and
> > my wife is barren?" The response given is the same one given when
> > Maryma (AS) says "How can I have a child when no man has touched me?"
> > The agony of Maryam (AS) when she realized the accusations she would
> > have to face resulted in the expression "Would that I have not lived
> > to see this day?" After these two events Allah goes on a discourse of
> > monotheism proving the absurdity that the miraculous nature of the
> > birth of Jesus (AS) proves divinity. On the contrary, Jesus's birth
> > finds itself well within the power of Allah.
>
> Comment:-
> So you think we have two immaculate conceptions?
>
They were both miraculous events well within the power of Allah, who
does whatever he wills. Whether one wants to consider them
'immaculate' is up to them. But the obvious meaning and coherenece of
the Quran is very clear.
By the way, I do not mean to sound offensive nor do I intent to. I
apologize if it may seem that way.
Wa salaam
Altway
news:9uhrqg$lhj$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> So yes, the revelation is miraculous, as Abu Bakr (R) said upon
> affirming the miraaj of the Prophet (S). But whether or not this has
> any relevance to whether or not the miracle was the actual virgin
> birth is another.
Comment:-
Asalam 'alaikum,
My articles on this subject were meant to show that the Quran speaks about
Jesus as a Word and Spirit from God and says nothing about his physical
origination.
I have neither affirmed or denied speculations about this.
Tell me: do you see the difference between a house and a home? If you are
speaking about a home is it important to know that the house is made from
bricks by bricklayers?
But you went into irrelevancies about modernism
> > The biggest fault of modernism is this specific feature. Denial,
> > denial, denial of anything that may not be perceived as 'scientific'.
> Comment:-
> You have your own idea of modernism. It consists of a whole set of
values......
> I really do not see the point into getting into such logistical
> arguemnts over what is modernism and what is traditionalism. Let's
> just say I chose my words badly. Let me rephrase, "The denial of
> miracles in the Quran is a striking feature of modernism."
Comment:-
Strange that you cannot see the point. You brought this irrelevant subject
up yourself and you are still doing it.
Apart from the fact that I made no denials, I have shown that your criticism
was irrational and it is irrelevant to Islam.
Islam is interested in truth whether or not you falsely call something
"modernism" or "traditionalism" or anything else. These are merely ways of
insulting people.
Does not the Quran say:-
"When it is said to them: Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, we
will follow the traditions of our fathers. What! Even though their fathers
had no sense (or wisdom) at all or guidance?" 2:170
> By the way, I do not mean to sound offensive nor do I intent to. I
> apologize if it may seem that way.
Comment:-
I certainly took offence but not only because you appear to have accused me
of "modernism" without knowledge - this I can overlook. But I could not
overlook what I regard as a serious error in thinking which distorts the
entire basis of Islamic faith. I simply do not understand "faith" as "blind
unintelligent belief" but as "confidence in truth which manifests as
appropriate behaviour."
But I did not wish to offend either.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Asalam 'alaikum,
> My articles on this subject were meant to show that the Quran speaks about
> Jesus as a Word and Spirit from God and says nothing about his physical
> origination.
Wa alaikum as salaam
First of all, my article was PRIMARILY directed to the post of Mrabcx,
who denies the miraculous birth. You acknowledge that you do not make
any affirmations to whether it was psiritual or physical, so than
obviously I misunderstood your post and I apologize for that. The
reason I posted in response to yours was merely because you were the
last person in the thread.
Secondly, the Quran does speak about Jesus' physical birth. There are
numerous proofs to indicate this. The notion of Maryam withdrawing
herself to escape the accusations of the Israelites, the expression
that she wished she was dead, the fact that she was told to fast and
not speak to anybody, the baby speaking from the cradle, the
relationship between the creation of Jesus and Adam point to this very
fact. The address of the births of John the Baptist and how Zechariah
exclaimed his wonderment just as Maryam exclaimed her wonderment. The
similar responses given by the angels point to this very fact.
Third, you said:
"But I could not overlook what I regard as a serious error in thinking
which distorts the
entire basis of Islamic faith. I simply do not understand "faith" as
"blind
unintelligent belief" but as "confidence in truth which manifests as
appropriate behaviour."
I do not see anywhere that I ever alluded to faith as a blind
unintelligent belief. All I did was say that the denial of such
obvious miracles in the Quran was a feature of modernism. When the
Quran criticizes the Jews as a group, it
does not imply, to use your words, "that it is not interested in
truth". It does not mean it is interested in labels. It points out
the specific characteristic that this group of people did which caused
them to earn God's anger, and from this Muslims can draw lessons on
how to avoid these same realities. I used 'modernism' and
'traditionalism' in the same sense. This is just a fact of language
and a recognized use. That is why I considered what you have pointed
out as merely playiong on words. When you say it is strange that I
did not see the point, the reason why is that I never intended the
word modernism in the sense you think I used it.
Of course what you have written is significant in the fact that the
Quran is recognzed only in accpetance of truth, not mere labels. But
that was never the way that I intended the word modernism to be taken.
> I have neither affirmed or denied speculations about this.
> Tell me: do you see the difference between a house and a home? If you are
> speaking about a home is it important to know that the house is made from
> bricks by bricklayers?
This is all a mere play on words. It is important to know the
physical nature of the birth of Jesus (AS) because it is meant to
convey various purposes in the Quran. If their was nothing miraculous
about it, the Quran would not have went to such lengths to even draw
attention to the situation of Maryam (AS) and words such as "How can I
have a son when no man has touched me?". It would have merely made
the truth clear as it says it does, and said "Jesus was born a natural
birth." Among the reasons for the narrations is:
1. To point out how the Christians exxagerated with respect to their
religion based upon the miraculous birth.
2. To point out the stubborn excesses and rejection of the truth of
the Bani Israel, i.e. the Jews.
> But you went into irrelevancies about modernism
>
This is not irrelevent. The denial of miracles is part of a
particular outlook as conceived for the past hundreds of years. It
shows how one's environment can cloud ones understanding of the Quran.
This is the same thing when you quoted:
"When it is said to them: Follow what Allah has revealed, they say:
Nay, we
will follow the traditions of our fathers. What! Even though their
fathers
had no sense (or wisdom) at all or guidance?"
The forefathers of science and disbelief claim that the only truth is
the materialistic view of cause and effect. They may believe in God,
but this God is one who has left this world to cause and effect. By
accepting this, one belies the notion of revelation. Revelation means
God acts in the world, and God assists the propagation of this
revelation through means beyond the reach of human perception as a
proof for the truth of a Prophets claims. It is acceptance that God
acts IN THE WORLD OF SPACE TIME, from the world of the 'spirit'. This
is the same view of physical miracles. To explain away miracles in
the Quran denial of a fundamental notion of the Quran.
Also, The Quran in fact uses the PAST as proof for revelation. The
Quran condemns those that had no sense at all NOR GUIDANCE. But
guidance tells us that miracles happened, and in fact, these miracles
to not contradict common sense. The Quran also uses past people as
proof of its truth. The whole story of Luqman is based upon the
wisdom of the forefather of the Arabs. The Quran promotes the fact
that the Quraysh should believe in monotheism, and it is the way of
their ancestor Abraham (AS), who was a monotheist. In fact, the Quran
uses miraculous events of the past to prove that a miracle, the
miraculous birht of Jesus, does not prove divinity.
What the Quran rejects is blind following of ancestors which leads to
rejection of the truth. It does not accept blind following.
> Comment:-
> Strange that you cannot see the point. You brought this irrelevant subject
> up yourself and you are still doing it.
To use the word modernism and apply to a specific outlook is not
irrelevant at all.
> Apart from the fact that I made no denials, I have shown that your criticism
> was irrational and it is irrelevant to Islam.
> Islam is interested in truth whether or not you falsely call something
> "modernism" or "traditionalism" or anything else. These are merely ways of
> insulting people.
The Quran in particular contexts speaks about Islam as the way of all
Prophets, and sometimes it speaks about Islam as the religion of
Muhammad (S).
The Quran sometimes speaks about the Jews as having particularly bad
traits.
Does that mean the Quran is insulting them? No. It is because, in
the majority, they possess these traits. In the same manner, when I
speak about modernism I meant it in that way. When I speak about
traditionalism I meant it in that way.
That is why I view this whole run around as merely a play on words.
> Does not the Quran say:-
> "When it is said to them: Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, we
> will follow the traditions of our fathers. What! Even though their fathers
> had no sense (or wisdom) at all or guidance?" 2:170
>
> > By the way, I do not mean to sound offensive nor do I intent to. I
> > apologize if it may seem that way.
>
> Comment:-
> I certainly took offence but not only because you appear to have accused me
> of "modernism" without knowledge - this I can overlook. But I could not
> overlook what I regard as a serious error in thinking which distorts the
> entire basis of Islamic faith. I simply do not understand "faith" as "blind
> unintelligent belief" but as "confidence in truth which manifests as
> appropriate behaviour."
>
> But I did not wish to offend either.
Neither do I consider that Islam is blind faith, and if what you
understood what I meant by modernism is that it is a 'serious error in
thinking which distorts the entire basis of Islamic faith" than I
wholeheartedly agree with you.
Wa salam ul alaikum