*Miraculous Birth* of Isa: continued debate
-
-
Peace Jonny,
But thats how it's supposed to be logically otherwise you can explain anything with symbolism.
And you can explain anything with a literal approach as well "Because God said so".
Personally, I prefer to find the lesson in the symbolism that I can apply to my life and verify. But like I said, it's your right to believe whatever you want, brother.
Peace,
Tay -
Salam "tay",
And you can explain anything with a literal approach as well "Because God said so".
JK- Personally i never use this type of approach. Now if taken literal then it is what it is and we can not manipulate the meaning to suit our desire. Thats what was meant. Now th question arises "what does that particular event signify". Well i must admit we dont know for sure right now but we will most assuredly find out in the future since the Quran is for all times so instead of jumping to sudden symbolic conclusions it would be more wise to wait and perhaps GOD will repeat His miracles and everyon e would stand in awe. Thats why I believe He kept those significant miracles mentioned in the Quran.
Personally, I prefer to find the lesson in the symbolism that I can apply to my life and verify. But like I said, it's your right to believe whatever you want, brother.
Peace,
TayJK- Once again this shows you dont have patience. You rush to a conclusion of symbolism where it doesnt say to do so. GOD gives many allegories in the Quran and HE STATES that Hes going to give one now like in 2435. The word "mathal" is used their indicating the allegory. So if GOD meant Isas birth, Moses rod, etc to be allegorically then he would have used a term like "mathal" before mentioinng it. Simple. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Jonny,
I stated
And you can explain anything with a literal approach as well "Because God said so".You stated
Personally i never use this type of approach.
I disagree. You use it in the very next sentence
Now if taken literal then it is what it is...
Next, you stated
we can not manipulate the meaning to suit our desire
Of course not. Why, then, do you assume that miracles might be coming in the future without any Qur'anic evidence?
You stated
Now th question arises "what does that particular event signify". Well i must admit we dont know for sure right now but we will most assuredly find out in the future since the Quran is for all times
Like I said, if that works for you, then okie dokie.
It doesn't work for me. A book of guidance should be about guidance, not about waiting for guidance that may not come for generations.so instead of jumping to sudden symbolic conclusions it would be more wise to wait
More wise according to you - not me, nor the Qur'an. Where does the Qur'an tell us that we should wait to understand the meaning of something it advises?
752 And We have come to them with a Scripture which We have detailed with knowledge; a guide and a mercy to those who believe.
See? No mention of waiting for the guidance. It's already there.
perhaps GOD will repeat His miracles and everyon e would stand in awe.
Not really bro. According to the Qur'an(6109, 615, the day such miracles take place, no one who hasn't already believed will believe anyway. It will be too late. So what's the point then?
Once again this shows you dont have patience.
Actually, I'm trying to conform to 1736
How is it that you verify these miracles, bro?You rush to a conclusion of symbolism where it doesnt say to do so.
1736 says I should verify all info. We are told that Allah uses every kind of example(226, 1789). Now you tell me that there must be a disclaimer stating that symbolism is being used.
If that's the case, then you should be able to find every kind of example in the Qur'an, preceded by the words "the following is an example". Please show me these verses brother. Not 1 or 2, but every kind, please.
Simple.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace,
I just want to address the "example" ie. mathal = symbolic point that Layth adheres to, and jonny_k follows, and is advanced above in relation to Jesus' creation/conception.
Peace,
I voted 'all literal'.
When God wants to make a 'symbolic' point, He uses the word 'mathal' (the example)...Other than that all that is said is literal.
God does not leave us guessing...We do that ourselves.
Khi- Salam. Exactly my point. GOD Bless!
Let's have a look at 359
359 The example of Jesus, as far as the God is concerned, is the same as the example of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he became.
Inna mathala AAeesa AAinda Allahi kamathali adama khalaqahu min turabin thumma qala lahu kun fayakoonu
So in this example (excuse the pun) Jesus is described with the term 'mathal' - and Adam is also. Thus the explanation implies a symbolic nature to the creation of each of these individuals.
Even the "mathal" theorists cannot deny this.
Therefore accordingly, this is pointing unambiguously that the nature of Jesus (his creation) is symbolic.
Regards.
-
Salam "truth",
I just knew this point would come up some time and voila here you did it. Well you see the verse above indeed gives an allegory of THE COMPARISON BETWEEN JESUS AND ADAM and NOT the virgin birth of Mary. This comparison is symbolical because it is not 100% alike if we consider that Jesus had a mother while Adam had neither father nor mother. It is there to remind us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD can do just anything and does NOT necessarily have to wait for the laws of nature to come into action with time like the Darwinian evolutionists claim. Dont you get this simple point? GOD doesnt say that Jesus' miraculous birth or his miracles are "mathal" does He? GOD Bless! -
Salam "truth",
I just knew this point would come up some time and voila here you did it. Well you see the verse above indeed gives an allegory of THE COMPARISON BETWEEN JESUS AND ADAM and NOT the virgin birth of Mary. This comparison is symbolical because it is not 100% alike if we consider that Jesus had a mother while Adam had neither father nor mother. It is there to remind us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD can do just anything and does NOT necessarily have to wait for the laws of nature to come into action with time like the Darwinian evolutionists claim. Dont you get this simple point? GOD doesnt say that Jesus' miraculous birth or his miracles are "mathal" does He? GOD Bless!Hey bro
While I don't agree with your belief in the 19 thingy I do respect your manner bro, excellent attitude
I was preparing about 15 pages reply to the this similitude things "mathal" to discuss it with brother Tay but I changed my mind as he is a very tough (in debating) and picky type of guy, which is fine with me but I don't have the time to commit to go one on one with his arguments (some are good though) so I decided to finish it off and post it for you as it will clearly explain to you and (others) what the word Arabic "Mathal" really means
Peace and God bless
-
Peace Khizar,
It is there to remind us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD can do just anything and does NOT necessarily have to wait for the laws of nature to come into action with time like the Darwinian evolutionists claim.
Oh I see.
So the roughly 25 billion years before the earth was formed etc. is an aberration then?
You are effectively saying that the God created the universe in ~25 billion years before the earth which has been around 4.5 billion years or so; but after all that time there was a sudden rush and He could not wait any further?
Is that your logic?
Dont you get this simple point?
I hope you see the nonsense in your argument.
Regards.
-
Salam "truth",
Oh I see.
So the roughly 25 billion years before the earth was formed etc. is an aberration then?
JK- No not necessarily though i still doubt the exact date. It may be different but anyways this has nothing to do with my claim. Infact this is exactly my point. GOD set a certain time for normal events we call natural BUT does this mean He cannot do otherwise at any other point? Or does this mean He didnt impant ceratin functions in the universe which cause sudden creatures or planets toi appear in a very short time? Ofcourse not. The cambrian explosion is one example of this. In the same way GOD may have calculated from the beginning a time when the atoms and molecules come together in a ceratin point that Mary give birth to a son without a male. I think you didnt read my article "Are miracles necessary supernatural".
You are effectively saying that the God created the universe in ~25 billion years before the earth which has been around 4.5 billion years or so; but after all that time there was a sudden rush and He could not wait any further?
Is that your logic?
JK- At the moment the range is between 15-20 billion years. Anyways i didnt make such a claim. Must be your misunderstanding. I said GOD doesnt HAVE TO WAIT. He can just as well intervene OR He could have planned and calculated in the virgin birth of Mary from the beginning before big bang which is actually what i'd go for.
I hope you see the nonsense in your argument.
Regards.
JK- I hope you see that you didnt even understand my argument. GOD Bless!
-
Peace be upon you,
The metaphor of the virgin birth has been going on since WAAAAAY before Judaism. The oldest religious document recorded in the world contains this virgin birth story. So why are some tryin to make this version a literal story? It has always been a metaphor.
-
Peace be upon you,
The metaphor of the virgin birth has been going on since WAAAAAY before Judaism. The oldest religious document recorded in the world contains this virgin birth story. So why are some tryin to make this version a literal story? It has always been a metaphor.
Z Peace to you Idolfree,
I really don't understand why one would need to rule out a literal reading of the verses in light of the fact (God's Law) that such births are medically concievable(possible).
Peace
-
Peace be upon you Zeljko,
A literal virgin birth does nothing to guide me. A metaphorical story that shows me how to awaken my own WILL so I can save myself is worth so much more to me, its uncomparible.
When we take into account that this same metaphor has been used since the oldest recorded religious system, then it really looks bad for te one time literal virgin birth story.
Finally, the God describes the stories as similitudes in this very book called "Koran".
-
Idolfree,
It seems you are implying that anything that is scientifically plausable can not hold any spiritual message for us. Does this mean that the miracle of dawn or solstice can hold no spiritual allegory for us? I am absolutely positive this is not what you mean, so I am supreemly puzzled why the idea of a real virgin birth troubles you. Shouldn't it be a walk in the park for people like us?
It happened! So what? Subahanallah!
There are those who believe it happened and those who do not. If both sides can find spiritual allegory in the event anyway then that is great news isn't it?
-
"The Sufi"
I am supreemly puzzled why the idea of a real virgin birth troubles you. Shouldn't it be a walk in the park for people like us?
1736 And you shall not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be held accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning. (And so, the insane and the disabled will have their incapacities taken into account in a court of law.)
We are never told to believe in myths. It's a walk in the park for Christians to believe it, as well as much besides it about Jesus. What's worst is that these other fabrications take support from the virgin birth myth.
By believing in this blindly you are acting as an accomplice to the lies.
It happened! So what? Subahanallah!
How about if we reverse it.
It didn't happen! So what?
Are the two positions equivalent? No. Because the latter statement doesn't strain our intellect and cuts off support for the nonsense of god-men and son of etc. The latter position is verifiable in our intellect and support the truth that Jesus was only a man, and nothing more than it.
Given that the latter position requires nothing extra or supernatural to have happened; and changes absolutely nothing for us, then using Occam's razor we must reject the virgin birth myth.
Regards.
-
Hey Brother Sofi
Please be AWARE that Oben is promoting the wrong meaning for 1736, They think that the words ?La Taqifu? means ?Do not follow?, and I refuted this non sense in details but his ego along with mquran is way too high that they insist of promoting the wrong understanding and sure others had followed them, Allah only knows why they are doing as such unquranic act by a Muslim, in doing so they ARE VIOLATUING THE TRUE MEANING FOR THE SAME VERY VERSE they are promoting the wrong understanding to it.
Their confusion is coming from the fact that two different words has the same letters, BUT different tashkil, and because they are novice in the Arabic language they sure careless about the tashkil
Here is what part of what I told them before bro but this time it is for you not to them as I have nothing further to tell them regarding 1736, it is mainly motivated I really don?t want a sincere muslim like you to be mislead indirectly
What I have noted that the supporters for this understanding never provided any evidence other than this
- the same word was used in another 3 locations which means to follow
- a few English translations showed the Arabic word ?Ta Qi Fa? as ?To follow?
No more evidences provided. Looking closely at their evidences we will see clearly that both have no merit and both can not be admissible to a person with intellect
First of all, the word ?Qa Fa Ya? means ?to cause something to follow something?, it never mean ?something to follow something?, the cause by an entity is a must here.
Let?s have a look at all the 3 locations where ?Qa Fa Ya? appeared and see what it means within the context
YUSUFALI We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!
PICKTHAL And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
SHAKIR And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.
(87)
-> What can I say, well, not much indeed, let?s just look at the Arabic word ? ?and see for ourselves
YUSUFALI ?We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers?
PICKTHAL ?and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him?
SHAKIR ?and We sent messengers after him one after another?
-> It seems to me that Yusuf Ali suffers from a very low IQ, we can see that the other two translated the Arabic word as an action that is caused by Allah, ?We Caused to Follow? and ?We Sent?, but mister Yusuf Ali said it like this ?and followed him?, come on, give me a break will ya?, what sense is that? It sounds like Allah is following him, Y A SHOULD NOT OMMIT THE SECOND WE REFERRING TO ALLAH AS THE WORDS ?QAFFAYNA? has a ?NA? at the end
-> See, if I?m following a friend on a path, then I should say I followed that person, but if I told my son to follow that person then I have to say it that I caused my son to follow that person because THE ACTION IS REFERING TO ME NOT TO MY SON and the action here was to cause other prophets to come one after another, this is obvious by the other 2 translations.
Let?s test 1736 according to the proper meaning which ?To cause to follow?
(36)
The translation should be like this
Do Not Cause to Follow what you lack knowledge in,
Oh please give me a break will ya, What sense is that?
Well if it says Do Not Cause Any One To Follow what you lack knowledge in, I might have accepted it despite its lack of sense as well, but there is no third party in the verse, it is God and whoever He is warning
I can now conclude to myself that Yusuf Ali is the weakest of?m all.
Let?s move on to the second location
YUSUFALI And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him We sent him the Gospel therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
PICKTHAL And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
(46)
-> Mister Yusuf Ali has just contradicted himself, well, let me tell you that this is normal with Mister Yusuf Ali, for the same Arabic word ? ? in 287 which he translated as ?And Followed?, in 546 he translated it as ?We Sent?, why is that ladies and gents? Isn?t the same identical word and context?
YUSUFALI ? And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary?
PICKTHAL ? And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps?
SHAKIR ? And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium?
But we can see the other two translators remained consistent with their translations ?We Caused to Follow? and ?We Sent?
No need for testing 1736 any more, let?s move to the last location where the word ?Qa Fa Ya? appears
YUSUFALI Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.
PICKTHAL Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers.
SHAKIR Then We made Our messengers to follow in their footsteps, and We sent Isa son of Marium afterwards, and We gave him the Injeel, and We put in the hearts of those who followed him kindness and mercy; and (as for) monkery, they innovated it-- We did not prescribe it to them-- only to seek Allah's pleasure, but they did not observe it with its due observance; so We gave to those of them who believed their reward, and most of them are transgressors.
(27)
-> It seems Yusuf Ali recognised that he made a contradiction when he translated 287 & 546 so he tried to fix it in 5726, but unfortunately he went with the wrong coin side in here. We see in 5727 the same Arabic word ? ?, let?s see how the 3 translators did
YUSUFALI ? Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers?PICKTHAL ? Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps?
SHAKIR ? Then We made Our messengers to follow in their footsteps?
Y.A. did the same mistake again, he translated as ?We Followed? while Allah can never follow any one, make sense to you?, it does to me as it seems he totally dropped ?caused? . We can also see that PICKTHAL remained consistent ?We Caused to Follow? , SHAKIR on the other hand changed it from ?We Sent? to ?We Made to Follow?
WE HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT ? ? MEANS ?MADE TO FOLLOW? or ?CAUSE TO FOLLOW?
If translated as ?TO FOLLOW? alone, then this is wrong 100%.
Summary
-
All three verses where ? ? ?Qaffayna? appeared was about one context only that Allah CAUSED PROPHETS TO FOLLOW ONE ANOTHER
-
There is only one meaning to that word which is ?Cause to follow? or ?Made to follow?
-
The Quran was consistent in using the Arabic word ? ? and all its diversions to express ?something following something?, over 170 times the word was used including numerous warnings and advices, here is a couple of example verse that include two advices ?to follow something? and one warning ?not to follow something?
?We said Go forth from this (state) all; so surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.?
(3
?Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow guardians besides Him, how little do you mind.?
(3)
Why on earth Allah has used that word numerous times to express ?to follow? while in those 3 verses where ?Qaffayna? appeared He used another word?, well the answer is simple because the other word DOES NOT MEAN ?TO FOLLOW?, but ? TO CAUSE TO FOLLOW?, this is obvious from the very lil times it was used ?3 times? in comparison with ?over 170 times? for the other word that MEANS ?TO FOLLOW?, IT is also obvious to any one to recognise that the 3 times this word appeared it was talking about the same context that Allah caused prophets to follow each other. Not a hard puzzle, isn?t it?
See brother Sofi, To summarize in a simple manner , Oben and similar who promote the wrong understanding to 1736 are missing on the following hard core fact
Even if the word in 1736 is not ?Wa Qa Fa? which means ?To stop?, or ?To stand up?, and is ?Qa Fa Ya? which means ?Cause to Follow?, they still translate it wrong by saying it ?Don?t follow? instead of according to the proper meaning while it should be ?Don?t CAUSE to follow?, this render the verse non sensible because ?Whom exactly that we should not CAUSE to follow?
See bro Sofi, Oben and similar are violating the same verse 1736 when we apply the proper meaning for ?Qa Fa Ya? not the wrong one they are promoting with passion, because they are causing you and others to follow what they (Oben and similar) lack knowledge in. therefore what they say will be held against them as per the rest of 1736. their ignorance and lack of knowledge is evident bro from translating ?Qa Fa Ya? to ?To Follow?,. Instead of ?Cause to Follow?
You may also see clearly that they even contradict their wrong understanding to 1736, by saying we don't follow what we don't have knowledge in as per 1736 and they reject the knowledge given to them about Isa's miracle birth and insist on their ignornace that they can't know how Isa was born whil Allah is telling them how in the Quran, unfortunatlly they rejected Allah by such contradicting and weird stand
Finally bro, I insist that the word in 1736 is ?Wa Qa Fa? which means ?to stop? or ?to stand up?, this is very common in the arab word to represent arguing with passion, we say itlike this exactly ?Inta Waqif Zai Al Luqmah Fi Al Zur?, which mean ?you argue with passion ?(oo much) as you are some food that is stuck (stopped) in the throat and causing breathing problem?
Allah is my witness
Peace be with you bro