Virgin Birth of Isa
-
Peace all,
I would just like to bring these two ayats into this discussion.
021.091
YUSUFALI And (remember) her who guarded her chastity We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.
PICKTHAL And she who was chaste, therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.
SHAKIR And she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and made her and her son a sign for the nations.
KHALIFA As for the one who maintained her virginity, we blew into her from our spirit, and thus, we made her and her son a portent for the whole world.066.012
YUSUFALI And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).
PICKTHAL And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient.
SHAKIR And Marium, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and she accepted the truth of the words of her Lord and His books, and she was of, the obedient ones.
KHALIFA Also Mary, the Amramite. She maintained her chastity, then we blew into her from our spirit. She believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures; she was obedient.Question what's those two ayats about?
I've read the viewpoints posted in the threads listed at the beginning of this discussion and marvel at the sight of opposite views coming from the reading of the same book. Firsthand, it makes no sense that a human be born without the male and female participation. If that were possible, who then would be considered the father, God? If not who's child would it be?
How did Mary become caught up in such a story? Wouldn't it stand to reason that of course Mary's child is human and as such would have a father? What the qur'an does though is correct the idea that God would have a son. But how could God have a child? Could such a child be the product of a virgin giving birth? How else could a story of a child of God come about? Could a virgin really have a child? Wouldn't that be beyond (not bending) the laws of nature?
The law of gravity pulls down humanity in a material, physical world. Creation, as we have discovered seems to have more non-stuff than ''real stuff''. We historically seem restrained within this mind-set of the touch and visible. Truth however doesn't seem bound to such limits, truth seems to lie also beyond. In fact truth must of existed before the universe, before the material, before the light, before time, before the creation of the laws. ''BE!'' and so it was. To travel back to the creator could well be to travel back to the command. Back to the word. Khun faya khun! Isn't Jesus the word of Allah?
Does the design of prophecy need a spiritual shift away from the material? That mixture of matter and spirit, isn't that what humans are? Isn't it the rhuh that differentiates us from all other creation? Isn't that the invisible? Don't we need to direct ourselves, as humanity in the direction of the invisible? Won't that be the direction of our return? What is your judgement?
adjwi
-
Peace,
Ruh means Wind, it stood for the Human Self as the human mind could go in any direction just as the wind blows in any direction. Ruh stood also for Aid/Support or Mercy as the wind brings rain and it was also used for Revelation in the Quran as Revelation is blown into Man as it was wind.
Shakir's translation is the best one as he understood the context in 6612 where Ruh and the Scriptures are connected directly, and so the Ruh that Mary receives is the inspiration, revelation.
-
Peace,
When the Malikah visited her, she received the Ruh, Revelation of Allah.
-
Lobster
But here's the thing, most "quran aloners" here never concluded anything. It seems they always had the assumption that the quran is right. That's the problem. Because of that assumption, people either follow what they know is wrong just because the quran says it, or (the more sensible ones) don't really read the quran at all, but come to an understanding they think is right independently and then fit it into the quran.
Exactly.
Lobster
This whole problem would be solved if people stopped believing in the quran's infallibility, and realize that the aim is the truth, not the quran.
Not so easy dear lobster, problems won't solve that easy.
You seem to follow what you wrote and after reading your posts i feel ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSED PERSON on the forum is you.
People may be wrong or right we cannot decide about that but they have faith in what they believe and they start the quest from that belief.
But if we start from confusion we end in confusion most of the time.I am sorry in advance if i said something which you donot like but I spend a time reading your various posts.
-
Lobster
Exactly.
Lobster
Not so easy dear lobster, problems won't solve that easy.
You seem to follow what you wrote and after reading your posts i feel ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSED PERSON on the forum is you.
People may be wrong or right we cannot decide about that but they have faith in what they believe and they start the quest from that belief.
But if we start from confusion we end in confusion most of the time.I am sorry in advance if i said something which you donot like but I spend a time reading your various posts.
That was a rather hypocritical post.
Exactly.
According to your standards, Lobster is a apostate/kafir and should be put to death. Here you are agreeing with a "disbeliever" over "Muslims".
Not so easy dear lobster, problems won't solve that easy.
You seem to follow what you wrote and after reading your posts i feel ONE OF THE MOST CONFUSED PERSON on the forum is you.
People may be wrong or right we cannot decide about that but they have faith in what they believe and they start the quest from that belief.
But if we start from confusion we end in confusion most of the time.I am sorry in advance if i said something which you donot like but I spend a time reading your various posts.
And when your personal belief is struck, apparently he's confused ;D
-
Salam All,
I read some of this post and replies, and I can't help but wonder,....why would jesus not be Virgin in essence of his making? You see, from what I understand, Adam was the only man, (first created mortal) who was not born from a mother and a father. God created him and said "Be" and he was. The same was applied to Jesus. God created him and said "be" and he was. The only difference is Jesus was sent through the vessel of his mother to be on this mortal earth, where as adam was sent down directly from God. However, they are both the same in the making. They are Distinct from any other, they were only made with dust and the command of god. they were not made by two mortals via god's blessing.
So therefore in my opinion, Jesus and Adam are of virgin births. Now does that mean Mary was a virgin? We will never know. Unless it is stated that she was a virgin, in the Quran (?). In logical essence she is a virgin in pregnancy with Jesus. She was not pregnant from sex, whether or not she had had sex before in her life.
So, this is my opinion and what I see, tell me what you think? What is your perspective?
Honor
-
Peace Honor,
They are Distinct from any other, they were only made with dust and the command of god.
We were all made from dust and the command of God. They are not distinct at all.
The only difference is Jesus was sent through the vessel of his mother to be on this mortal earth
Isn't that a pretty big difference?
According to you understanding
Adam was the first person, no parents, no friends, no other people whatsoever.
Also, he appeared out of nowhere - no pregnancy.
Presumably already a thinking and speaking man.Isa was born of a mother, from a womb, presumably for 9 months, in a very populated Earth. He was a baby and grew up to be a man.
Isn't that completely different?
The qur'an clearly tells us what the similarities are Dust, and "Be". There's no need for us to dig any further. The answer is right there. They were created the way God creates anything "Be"
And they were created from the same as the rest of us DustPeace,
Tay -
OPF
According to your standards, Lobster is a apostate/kafir and should be put to death. Here you are agreeing with a "disbeliever" over "Muslims".
hahahahha bravo
I forgot what do they call the persons who grow in age but their IQ remains the same as was in child hood? can any one help? -
The qur'an clearly tells us what the similarities are Dust, and "Be". There's no need for us to dig any further. The answer is right there. They were created the way God creates anything "Be"
And they were created from the same as the rest of us DustPeace,
TayShe said "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
Qalat anna yakoonu lee ghulamunwalam yamsasnee basharun walam aku baghiyyanHe said "So Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me and to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us'It is a matter decreed."
Qala kathaliki qalarabbuki huwa AAalayya hayyinun walinajAAalahu ayatan lilnnasiwarahmatan minna wakana amran maqdiyyan
They were created from dust as rest of the us but the process through which we pass during our birth as also detailed in Quran is different for those two mentioned above. That is why Allah has pointed out these two in following Ayat.
The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.
Honor does it answer your queries too.
-
Peace Raj-ah,
but the process through which we pass during our birth as also detailed in Quran is different for those two mentioned above. That is why Allah has pointed out these two in following Ayat.
If that was truly why God pointed these 2 out, God would have mentioned it in the ayah, ie created from dust, said to him "be", and neither was born like the rest of you.
Unfortunately, we only have dust and "be", which happens to be the same as everyone else.
Seems to me the message in the ayah is not that they were different from us, but the same.Furthermore, nowhere in th qur'an does it even explain Adam's spawning. All we have is 711 ...And We created you, then We shaped you...
Again, exactly the way everyone else is created.
How about his spouse? Where did she come from? If this was more spontaneous spawning, shouldn't the example of Isa be like Adam and his spouse?
More questions that will lead to more questions that would not be there in the first place if we didn't bring preconceptions to God's guidance, in this case, a myth that predates the qur'an by thousands of years.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace,
Peace,
Ruh means Wind, it stood for the Human Self as the human mind could go in any direction just as the wind blows in any direction. Ruh stood also for Aid/Support or Mercy as the wind brings rain and it was also used for Revelation in the Quran as Revelation is blown into Man as it was wind.
Shakir's translation is the best one as he understood the context in 6612 where Ruh and the Scriptures are connected directly, and so the Ruh that Mary receives is the inspiration, revelation.
1785 And they ask you about the soul. Say The soul is one of the commands of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little.
Shakir uses the word soul for what the text writes as ''ruuhumin'' and you Arnold are able to tell me what it means. Thank God I have the Qur'an!
6612 And Marium, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and she accepted the truth of the words of her Lord and His books, and she was of, the obedient ones.
Arnold, is it possible that the ''fiihi'' found in 6612 makes it specific as to where the blowing occured, precision which is not mentionned in the use of ''fiihaa'' found in 2191 ?
Arnold, may I just suggest that you keep your certitude closer to yourself, your ''assureness'' could perhaps lead others astray in their comprehension.
adjwi
-
Peace adjwi,
Indeed I overlooked the ending of Feehi and looked only to the context, thank you for pointing that out in such a friendly manner.
In the Quran, as far as i have seen is Ruh always blowin into people, not into organs. So the Feehi in 6612 refers to Jesus in the womb, the same words are used with Adam
1529
Fa-itha sawwaytuhu wanafakhtu feehi min roohee faqaAAoo lahu sajideenaSo in 6612 it refers to Life being blown into Jesus. The Feeha in 2191 refers to the Ruh being blown into Mary, and since she is alive already, the Ruh has to be Revelation.
This is my humble opinion -*
-
Peace Arnold,
''So the Feehi in 6612 refers to Jesus in the womb, the same words are used with Adam''
''So in 6612 it refers to Life being blown into Jesus. The Feeha in 2191 refers to the Ruh being blown into Mary, and since she is alive already, the Ruh has to be Revelation.''
Are you understanding that Jesus was in the womb, then the ruh was blown? I'm trying to understand how you order the sequence.
Is it the case that the feeha is directed to the feminine (word) and that the feehee is directed to the masculine (word)? What would be that masculine word referred to then in 6612? Could it be the vagina that she had safeguarded?
adjwi
-
Peace,
Show me a place in the Quran where the Ruh of Allah is used on organs.
-
Peace,
Peace,
Show me a place in the Quran where the Ruh of Allah is used on organs.
Sorry Arnold but my questionning was about ''feehee'', to what word in this case does the ''...hee'' refer to.
For the rest, do you understand Jesus was already in the womb??? As for searching the rest of the Qur'an to prove or disprove the relation with organs an ruhh, I don't see the point of adventuring myself in such direction, as this was not an object of mine.
adjwi
-
Peace,
You try to link the Feehi with the Fajara, so to prove the Ruh is blown into an organ to create Jesus, you must first show this also happens with other cases of Ruh. As far as I know, Ruh is always blown into persons to make them live or receive inspirations, it is not blown into organs to create a person, it is blown into an already physical body that can contain the Ruh.
-
Peace all,
Peace,
You try to link the Feehi with the Fajara, so to prove the Ruh is blown into an organ to create Jesus, you must first show this also happens with other cases of Ruh. As far as I know, Ruh is always blown into persons to make them live or receive inspirations, it is not blown into organs to create a person, it is blown into an already physical body that can contain the Ruh.
I'm asking the question to what word does feehi refer to? Indeed, can we not read in this particular instance that because of the linguistic it would refer to the fajara? Let's begin here as the subject of this thread pertains to Jesus, doesn't it?
adjwi
-
Peace,
The Feehi does not need to refer to a word present in the sentence, it refers to something Male, be it a male word or a male being. There was something Male present with Mary. I believe it was Jesus the foetus inside her womb, as Ruh as far as I have seen only goes into a body that can contain the Ruh, I do not believe it refers to Faraja, although a male word, as this refers to her private parts.
God has no mate, so the Ruh cannot be understood as some divine sperm which made Mary pregnant. There had already to be something in her womb for the Ruh to go into.
Mary is also called ahsahnat in the verse, one who protects herself, fortifies herself against unlawful sex mostly through marriage. I had a discussion with Samia on this where the thought came up that ahsanat in the Quran is 99% used for already married women, so it is logical to believe she was already married and she became pregnant of her husband and then fulfilling the Prophecy the Malikah said to her before that she will become pregnant and give birth to a Prophet, something she was astonished to hear when they told her.
-
Peace all,
I'm asking the question to what word does feehi refer to? Indeed, can we not read in this particular instance that because of the linguistic it would refer to the fajara? Let's begin here as the subject of this thread pertains to Jesus, doesn't it?
adjwi
Salaam all
I do not think you can solve this linguistically, since both Jesus and faraj are masculine, and can be referred to by the masculine suffixed pronoun in "feehi".
Mary became pregnant because she "ahsanat" farajaha/ got married, not because "God" blew into "her private parts"! I find this too literal and tasteless, like a different way of having sex...I believe that God blew into Jesus to make him a special person, the way He blew into the "bashar" to make him "insaan".