Jesus, Miracles, Virginbirth and the Nazarenes
-
Excuse me? Does this mean only the people AFTER the Quran are made by male and female? The Quran clearly says ALL humans are made by the mixing of the two cells. This includes past and present.
Are you saying that whenever "mankind" is mentioned, it is referring to ALL mankind of past as well?!
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
Where is your proof this is the only way possible? Plus if she was divorced, she wouldn't be called by her husbands name would she? I have no Quranic proof she was divorced,
To be divorced, she has to married first. And to suggest that she was married would be un-Quranic. And Biblical.
To say she was not married when being made pregnant is also un-Quranic.
It is very Quranic. Marium said "My Lord, how can I have a son while no man has touched me?"
And when it comes to procreation, the Quran is clear that it has used the same system always for humans.
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well?
The verse is saying it. Suppose, someone tells a girl "You are gonna get pregnant after 5 or 10 years", the girl might say "really? ...oh, ok."
But if she is told "You ARE pregnant!", her response would be "how?! Since no man has touched me!". Just like Marium's response.
It means that when the malaika gave her the good news...
When i would walk up to you and say i was gonna push you and you will fall and it will hurt. Does this immediately mean i will do it right that moment? No. And you can react'How? You haven't even touched me!', but does this imply at all you were already hit? No. Does this reject the notion i can hit you 2 years from now? No. The same holds with Mary. She was told she was gonna get pregnant of Jesus, it doesn't say she was MADE pregnant right there on that moment. No timespan is given. And her reaction is the same like yours would be on my news that i was gonna push you "how? i haven't been touched?". To believe that telling the good news also implies that she was made pregnant right at that moment is non-Quranic. To believe her rejection of being touched when she was told she will have a child, immediately implies she will never be touched by a man is again non-Quranic. She was raised in a temple. This almost always implies celibacy, and being raised to keep celibacy. Her response is normal for a person who has been raised as a nun.
)
If you walk up to me and say tell me that you are gonna push me 2 years from now, to make me fall, I will respond by saying "Like I am gonna let you push me now?! Now that you have told me your plans, I won't let it happen!".
But WHY in the world would I say "You haven't touched/pushed me yet"?!! What has it got to do with pushing me two years from now?! Only a foolish person would say "you haven't touched me yet"!
The only condition in which I would respond by saying "You haven't touched/pushed me yet" is if I have ALREADY fallen without you touching me. And then I can say "My lord! How did I fall while Arnold didn't even touch/push me". And if there would be a malaika around, he would be saying "Like that, Allah does what He wills. When He decrees a command, He merely says for it "Be", and it is." !
So... Just like that? (match the colors)
The only condition in which Marium would respond by saying "No man has touched me" is if she was ALREADY pregnant without a man touching her. And then she can say "My lord! How can I have a son(i.e how can I be pregnant) while no man has touched me". And then the malaika said "Like that, Allah creates whatever He wills. When He decrees a command, He merely says for it "Be", and it is." !
I hope you can understand this now.
- She was not married. Since she was called by her name, and not by her husband's name.
The verses in the Quran that talk about her becoming pregnant were told when she was not married yet. The verses that tell about her pregnancy and deliverance of Jesus, she was already divorced as custom in the Nazarene Temple. Plus, you have no law that says people can only be called by her husbands name. In the Quran you can see it used when the husband is also a subject in the Quran like the pharoah or Abraham. Since Jesus's father has no significance, he is not part of the Quranic story, and thus Mary is not named as her ex-husband. All wives that do carry their husbands name, have husbands that are part of the Quranic message.
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
- And she was not divorced either, since she said that no man had touched her.
We only know that she was not touched on the moment. To say that this means she was not gonna get married after the malikah's visit is conjecture.
You are confused about this topic, bro. Was she married at the moment the malaika gave her the good news?
Till now you have only defended weak personal interpretation. The Quran says clearly ALL of mankind is made out the mixture of 2 cells. And God doesn't change His ways. So the virginbirth interpretation of the verses do not stand, and are to be rejected.
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well?
-
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
peace Fahad,
whenever somethng says "mankind" it means mankind in general. The whole human race as a whole. It doesn't matter who is alive or who is dead. AND Jesus is compared to Adam, which means jesus must have had two parents.Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
You talk about Allah's sunnat here, yet it doesn't occur to you that Jesus being born without a father is breaking Allah's sunnat. Because according to the Allah's laws, as the quran says, everyone has TWO biological parents.
Why would Allah break his sunnat here? There are more instances in the quran where Allah's sunnat is broken.
SO, if you think there are no fixed laws, or a fixed way things happen, then you shouldn't talk about it. But if you do, then you need to take hard look at your "miracles" in the quran. -
peace Fahad,
whenever somethng says "mankind" it means mankind in general. The whole human race as a whole. It doesn't matter who is alive or who is dead. AND Jesus is compared to Adam, which means jesus must have had two parents.So when the the Quran says that it is a guidance for mankind, it means that it was a guidance for pre-quranic people as well? Was Quran present in pre-Quranic times? From day one?
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
You talk about Allah's sunnat here, yet it doesn't occur to you that Jesus being born without a father is breaking Allah's sunnat. Because according to the Allah's laws, as the quran says, everyone has TWO biological parents.
Why would Allah break his sunnat here? There are more instances in the quran where Allah's sunnat is broken.
SO, if you think there are no fixed laws, or a fixed way things happen, then you shouldn't talk about it. But if you do, then you need to take hard look at your "miracles" in the quran.Al-quran decides what Allah's sunnat is. So Allah did not break any sunnat by the virginbirth and "miracles".
-
Peace,
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
It depends on the context of the verse. But if really you want to hang on to your belief in the virginbirth by saying that only after 600AD people were made out of male and female, please do. Then your empirical thinking truly has been lost.
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
Allah's way always has been the same when it comes to message or the Laws of Nature. This is Allah's sunnat to me.
We only know that she was not touched on the moment. To say that this means she was not gonna get married after the malikah's visit is conjecture.
You are confused about this topic, bro. Was she married at the moment the malaika gave her the good news?
Was she not married after the news? When the malikah told her, was she instantly pregnant?
I believe we must agree to disagree Fahad.
Peace
-
Arnold,i welcome your empirical scientific approach,i was not claiming you were dogmatic just because you believe the quran is 'divine',no i said that because i feel that you are always asserting your PERSONAL understandings of verses above that of other folks just because you feel that your methodology is better,and i see clearly that other folks oftentimes have a better understanding/more logical interpretation than yourself....I just feel you should take on board other folks views who seem more logical on certain topics,nobody likes someone who comes across as a know it all......Remember ahmedbhaghat? You seem like him at times but with more finesse...(of course you know i do like many many of your great ideas too,its not all bad!)
Now,i find it strange to hear that you say your ideas are from ancient commentators of 1400 years past,because you also claim that the quran has been corrupted in translation by ancient commentators and you are trying to revive the 'original' or correct meanings...I would like you to quote these ancient commentators for the benefit of the forum and explain (if they truely can be verified.) why these aformentioned commentators have almost zero influence on islam today,and why their works are very obscure?
If you claim islam and the quran can be explained in an empirical scientific way then you do away with one of the core ideas of religion (and 99% of islam.) by promoting disbelief in the 'supernatural'.......Your understanding that 'gods sunnat' does not change and is 'scientific' is only from YOUR personal understanding of the quran,do you believe that god CANNOT change his laws,or do you believe god is bound by these laws,and what brings you to the conclusion that god cannot work in a supernatural way? To be blunt,belief in an entity outside of time and space,being all-powerful,all knowing and unaffected by anything is in itself an unverifiable SUPERNATURAL concept,and a concept that defies physics,science,logic and empirical evidence,this means gods sunnat does change with respect to himself,which is a quranic CONTRADICTION which i hope you can see......
Why subject everything to empirical observation when the number one religious entity (god.) cannot really be verified by science or empricism....? -
As always with you arnie, i am posting to give you constructive criticism,and to find flaws in your views with a view to better and greater understandings....As kyle says we need to 'jidal' (debate constructively.) to try and get resistance towards our views in an effort to get to a better,more complete understanding,and to change our mistaken conclusions.(which we all can have.)
You know i do thoroughly respect SOME of your views,i just want you to remain openminded and not turn your views into a monologue or a religion.....We all need to say at times that these things we write are our own FALLABLE views,and our views are not god speaking direct.(ie,infallible.) We all make mistakes and have incomplete understandings at times,even you arnie... handshake muscle elektro
Take care... -
So when the the Quran says that it is a guidance for mankind, it means that it was a guidance for pre-quranic people as well? Was Quran present in pre-Quranic times? From day one?
"Mankind" means the human race in general. It includes everyone. The quran may not have been there, but the guidance of the quran was. The message is in the signs of the universe, which can be explained in words. And you can't ignore the quran when it says that Jesus is similar to Adam. As Arnold said, babies didn't fall out of the sky before the quran was written. The laws of the universe remain the same. So Allah's sunnat remains the same throughout too.
Fahad, you have to stay open minded about this. Right now, with all due respect, you are bordering on stupidity.
It's better if you take a second look at your interpretation than abandon all logic and reason to support it.
And going back to Allah's sunnat, it is not dictated by the quran, it is in the signs of al kitab (universe). All my life, I have never seen a baby born without a father, or a sea being split in two, or suns or stars prostrating to something. According to your approach, Allah keeps changing his sunnat (because what supposedly happened with Jesus and Moses and Adam doesn't happen with us), which contradicts your earlier argument. -
Easy phoenix,why doesnt allahs sunnat apply to himself? Allah changes his sunnat for himself,as no other 'entity' is beyond physical laws such as growth and decay.....Isnt this a contradiction,or no?
-
Peace,
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
It depends on the context of the verse. But if really you want to hang on to your belief in the virginbirth by saying that only after 600AD people were made out of male and female, please do.
If it depends on context then, due to the context of Jesus' birth, he is excluded from that "mankind" occurrence.
But if you wanna hang on to satanic/Biblical stories, please do so.
Then your empirical thinking truly has been lost.
Coming from the one whose theories are relying on satanic stories from the Bible.
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
Allah's way always has been the same when it comes to message or the Laws of Nature. This is Allah's sunnat to me.
Thats your personal version of Allah's sunnat.
We only know that she was not touched on the moment. To say that this means she was not gonna get married after the malikah's visit is conjecture.
You are confused about this topic, bro. Was she married at the moment the malaika gave her the good news?
Was she not married after the news?
No. When she said "how can I have a son while no man has touched me", the malaika replied "Just like that. Your Lord has said, it is easy for Me."(1921 and the next verse says "so she was pregnant" and "Just like that, Allah creates whatever He wills. When He decrees a command, He merely says for it "Be", and it is."(347)
If she was supposed to get married afterwards, the malaika would have replied "Don't worry, kid. A man will surely touch you before you can have a child. We don't believe in "miracles" either!".
Does it get any clearer than that?
When the malikah told her, was she instantly pregnant?
Yeah. I had given you a detailed and colorful example to prove it, but you ignored it. She had the child without any man touching her.
I believe we must agree to disagree Fahad.
Peace
Ok, bro.
Peace.
-
Easy phoenix,why doesnt allahs sunnat apply to himself? Allah changes his sunnat for himself,as no other 'entity' is beyond physical laws such as growth and decay.....Isnt this a contradiction,or no?
peace
But god is not a physical entity.
Take energy for example. Energy never dies and is never born. -
Ah,but energy changes and energy is not one entity in itself,energy does increase and decrease in respective concentrations. Is god energy then? Everything is subject to CHANGE in gods sunnat,what about god? You see my point? Is god subject to change? Everything we know has a 'physical' part to it,so how do you say god is a non physical entity? Are there any other examples of verifiable 'non physical' entities (in gods unchanging natural sunnat) besides god? How does god expect us to believe in a non physical entitiy (ie himself.) which we cant verify in light of 1736?
ps; if there is only one unique all-knowing entity in the universe (god.) isnt this an unnatural change in gods sunnat of everything supposedly being in pairs? Why the suspension of all known natural laws (sunnat.) when it comes to god? Isnt this a contradiction? -
Arnold,i welcome your empirical scientific approach,i was not claiming you were dogmatic just because you believe the quran is 'divine',no i said that because i feel that you are always asserting your PERSONAL understandings of verses above that of other folks just because you feel that your methodology is better,and i see clearly that other folks oftentimes have a better understanding/more logical interpretation than yourself....I just feel you should take on board other folks views who seem more logical on certain topics,nobody likes someone who comes across as a know it all......Remember ahmedbhaghat? You seem like him at times but with more finesse...(of course you know i do like many many of your great ideas too,its not all bad!)
Now,i find it strange to hear that you say your ideas are from ancient commentators of 1400 years past,because you also claim that the quran has been corrupted in translation by ancient commentators and you are trying to revive the 'original' or correct meanings...I would like you to quote these ancient commentators for the benefit of the forum and explain (if they truely can be verified.) why these aformentioned commentators have almost zero influence on islam today,and why their works are very obscure?
If you claim islam and the quran can be explained in an empirical scientific way then you do away with one of the core ideas of religion (and 99% of islam.) by promoting disbelief in the 'supernatural'.......Your understanding that 'gods sunnat' does not change and is 'scientific' is only from YOUR personal understanding of the quran,do you believe that god CANNOT change his laws,or do you believe god is bound by these laws,and what brings you to the conclusion that god cannot work in a supernatural way? To be blunt,belief in an entity outside of time and space,being all-powerful,all knowing and unaffected by anything is in itself an unverifiable SUPERNATURAL concept,and a concept that defies physics,science,logic and empirical evidence,this means gods sunnat does change with respect to himself,which is a quranic CONTRADICTION which i hope you can see......
Why subject everything to empirical observation when the number one religious entity (god.) cannot really be verified by science or empricism....?Peace,
I understand you dear Asif, and my confidence in my ideas can sometimes be mistaken for arrogance. As for theories that in your eyes seem better, you know i'm only convinced by evidence and a level of logic. So this means that those theories didn't live up to my criteria. It is not wrong to disagree on this, and i must live by my standards and not yours.
As for the idea that Islam must believe in a God that supports the supernatural is wrong. Only in the last 1000 years does the supernatural dominate Islam. This is normal, as most people in that those times were in a mythological phase of thinking. Their concept of power or divinity was connected by miracles and the supernatural as they themselves understood little of the creation. Because they didn't see the world and the whole universe as evidence enough for Allah's power, they demanded things that went beyond their direct doing.
The thing is, it is not that God cannot do it, the question is, will God do it? Throughout the Quran, God says that no miracle will convince people and that He will not brake His laws. This includes the Laws of Nature. Throughout the Quran, God refers to reason and observation, we have to look at the creation, at our own bodies, how miraclous everything works and fits. God has the power to do anything, this is not being questioned. If we are truly convinced by miracles is the question. Do we need them to believe? Does this make our believe in God's power less? Does this makes the power and intelligence that was involved to create the universe less? When i talk with people about the verses being translated wrong and are twisted into miracles, they always end up withDon't you believe God can do these things? And then we finally end up at the question why people defend miracles. It is because their God's image is based on a supernatural God. Instead of God being present direct here in all that excists, He having create all that excists through such precise Laws, on slight deviation and we would not be here. They do not base God's power on the creation itself, but on braking the laws they cannot brake themselves.
This idea of power is based on the genetic cultural inherited definition of power. All our definitions are based on this world's use of that subject. The idea of what power is, is based on how power is used by the ruling people. When you grow up, your dad is your first former of the definition of power. Then when you're grown, the rulers of your tribe, nation or land forms the new definition.
To accept these people ruling you, they should not be like you. They were seen as superhumans, and all the rituals involved wit these people were made so to sustain this believe. When you look at kings, or any statesman in the past and even present. They are always made special. In the past, a royal family lived completely isolated, so that the normal people would not see that they have the same needs as them. To give them total rule, they cannot be like you. This concept was made in your youth. Your dad had his own ways of conduct, his own habits and interrests that completely differed from your habits and interrests. You had to sleep earlier then him, you couldn't drink or eat as him, you couldn't talk like him as he did to other people, you didn't own things, you were always the reciever, never the giver, you could not rule him and so on. So the concept of power was immediately connected with behaviour that deviated from your own.
This was incorperated by the elite. They lived in seperation from the normal people, so the normal people could sustain their concept of power, and the elite could abuse it. It is a role they take on. You can also see this today with rulers but also even with for example moviestars and popstars, who's life must be seen as different and special before the person is really seen as a 'star', someone to be revered or honoured. Their life must be as different, as your dad's was compared to you when you were young. If not, they will loose their status. When you grew older, you saw your dad was not so different from you as you thought. He looses his status over time, and in puberty you rebel against him.
Kings were seen as gods, sons of gods, angels, as people who talked directly to gods, who were born out of virgins and so on. They could heal, perform miracles. All sorts of stories were made up to sustain the different form of existence and thus the rightfull claim to power over you.
If we already behave like this to humans, if we already demand such different behaviour from humans that rule us. What do you think we demand from Prophets, from God? From a divinity? This divinity must then even top the rulers when it comes to different behaviour. When a Prophet comes with the authority of God. To accept him, people demand behaviour from him that tops the elite's behaviour. Miracles are demanded, see for example
They say "Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?" Say "Allah hath certainly power to send down a Sign but most of them understand not." 637
And the deniers of truth say! "Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner and to every people a guide. 137
The rejectors demanded the following miracles
- Cause spring to gush forth.
- Garden of date trees and vines and rivers gush forth with abundant water.
- Cause the sky to fall in pieces.
- To bring angels face to face
- House adorned with gold
- Mounting on a ladder right into the skies
- Cause to send a book which they can read
- A garden whereof he may eat
- A treasure being granted to him.
This shows the typical behaviour people demand, which is logical and normal. They are demanding that which their psychology demands from a person in power and authority. But he only comes with arguments of Truth, which is hard to accept immediately as they have to replace their definition of power.
The concept of God is even more twisted, as we demand, just like with Prophet's, that he must show miracles. We know God has the power, why won't He show it? This demand is refuted by God in the Quran by saying that the creation is evidence enough. People had to little knowledge of the laws that are involved for sustaining this creation, so they never really saw the creation itself as the miracle of God, that they excisted, that they were alive.
This was something never seen as special before. So when Islam spread, most people still held on to their demand for miracles, as there was not enough information yet that made the creation itself special. Only later on, during the golden age of Islam, did the science flourish so much, that this demand became less. This can also been seen during the 1700-now were scientifical research on the creation, on the universe and its laws, made the people's demand on miracles go away. Because the biblical concept of God was purely based on miracles, people became atheist as their idea of power was not based anymore on miracles. The creation itself became an idol, materialism became the new religion, as Nature itself had the authority and was in itself the miracle.
Only a few commentators, as Raghib and others, had a highly evolved God's concept, where they didn't demand power through miracles. The creation was enough. Also Islamic philosphers, who were mostly scientists themselves, also didn't approach God as a miracle God. Their idea of power had shifted and the Universe was seen as the miracle itself.
Now most people in this age, live with a schizophrenic mind, where they live and study science, but when it comes to God, they hold on to the supernatural. As the idea of God's power in secterian Islam is purely based on interpretations and stories that were written in the time when most people still had the miracle definition of power. So their mind is split in two. Literature written in a time were most scholars and people still believed in the miracle-performing God rules the interpretation of the Quran, and thus the Quran was never approached objectively only by a few.
This is why most Islamic literature is based on belief in miracles and not on objective, empirical observations and interpretation of the Quran and Universe. And this is also why we can reject that sort of literature, as we can understand God's demand to see the Universe's creation better then the people before us. The sad thing is, that most Muslims who use only the Quran as an authority, are brought up with the miracle-performing God, and are stuck with it.
This is no crime, this is normal psychological behaviour.This is what God wants us to learn through the Quran, we must replace our definition of God's behaviour of power with the correct definition, which is the the excistence of life itself, the excistence of the Universe is the only proof needed. This was also Einstein's definition of God, as his God's image was formed through his scientific thinking.
-
Did they not look at the dominion of heavens and Earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so in which narrations after this one will they believe?
-
Those who remember God while standing, and sitting, and on their sides, and they ponder in the creation of the heavens and the Earth ?Our Lord you did not create this without purpose, be You glorified, spare us the retribution of the Fire!?
-
Will they not look at the camels, how are they created?
-
And to the sky, how is it raised?
-
And to the mountains, how was it set?
-
And to the land, how was it flattened?
-
So remind, for you are but a reminder.
-
Ah,but energy changes and energy is not one entity in itself,energy does increase and decrease in respective concentrations. Is god energy then? Everything is subject to CHANGE in gods sunnat,what about god? You see my point? Is god subject to change? Everything we know has a 'physical' part to it,so how do you say god is a non physical entity? Are there any other examples of verifiable 'non physical' entities (in gods unchanging natural sunnat) besides god? How does god expect us to believe in a non physical entitiy (ie himself.) which we cant verify in light of 1736?
ps; if there is only one unique all-knowing entity in the universe (god.) isnt this an unnatural change in gods sunnat of everything supposedly being in pairs? Why the suspension of all known natural laws (sunnat.) when it comes to god? Isnt this a contradiction?Peace,
Energy is bound to laws, and can only move in the limits of these laws. God is All and beyond. Infinite. Energy itself is not infinite, only in this dimension. God's dimension encompasses all dimensions. God can do what He wants, but He doesn't when it comes to this dimension, as He made the Laws of Nature with a purpose, and His goal can be obtained through these laws. There is no need to break them.
-
Ah,but energy changes and energy is not one entity in itself,energy does increase and decrease in respective concentrations. Is god energy then? Everything is subject to CHANGE in gods sunnat,what about god? You see my point? Is god subject to change? Everything we know has a 'physical' part to it,so how do you say god is a non physical entity? Are there any other examples of verifiable 'non physical' entities (in gods unchanging natural sunnat) besides god? How does god expect us to believe in a non physical entitiy (ie himself.) which we cant verify in light of 1736?
ps; if there is only one unique all-knowing entity in the universe (god.) isnt this an unnatural change in gods sunnat of everything supposedly being in pairs? Why the suspension of all known natural laws (sunnat.) when it comes to god? Isnt this a contradiction?peace enq,
I'll admit I don't know what exactly the quran means by "the god," but I think that it is something we can verify, otherwise it wouldn't be there.
There are a lot of "non physical" things. Your thoughts and emotions are non physical.
The thing is that on the surface everything changes, but underneath, there are laws that never change. The gravitational constant stays constant. E=mc^2 will always work in any circumstance. The laws never change. They are unchanging and eternal. And maybe these laws are God? I don't know. -
Peace,
Yes before that, there were many different interpretations on the Quran wide spread. Many which were pretty scientifical in its approach. Only about a 1000 years ago did the supernatural believe completely overtake the mainstream interpretation and later on was even made obligatory.
-
yes, I understand. It was just a little joke as you make a millenium seem like a small time.
One thing I have noticed is that no matter what anyone writes, people start taking it literally and they end up with religions and rituals and what not. The quran is a good example (even when it says we shouldn't take it literally, it doesn't say that literally of course). There was this group that actually started worshipping "reason." Sometimes the literal approach is so ridiculous. The hadith take it to the extreme (guess what the "straight path" is) -
So when the the Quran says that it is a guidance for mankind, it means that it was a guidance for pre-quranic people as well? Was Quran present in pre-Quranic times? From day one?
"Mankind" means the human race in general. It includes everyone. The quran may not have been there, but the guidance of the quran was.
Why include Jesus and exclude the Quran? You are picking and choosing.
The message is in the signs of the universe, which can be explained in words. And you can't ignore the quran when it says that Jesus is similar to Adam. As Arnold said, babies didn't fall out of the sky before the quran was written. The laws of the universe remain the same. So Allah's sunnat remains the same throughout too.
Fahad, you have to stay open minded about this. Right now, with all due respect, you are bordering on stupidity.I am being stupid? When you haven't even addressed my arguments?
It's better if you take a second look at your interpretation than abandon all logic and reason to support it.
In another thread you said that you don't know a squat about arabic, but with all due respect, you don't know a squat about Al-Quran either.
So it is better to take a first look at the verses relevant to the topic.
And going back to Allah's sunnat, it is not dictated by the quran,
It is dictated by Al-Quran. Read the verses about sunnat of Allah.
it is in the signs of al kitab (universe).
Hehe... You won't have any proof to back this, but Al-Quran is tafseel of Al-Kitab. So even if going by your understanding, al-quran still provides tafseel of 'sunnat of Allah from al-kitaab'. You were talking about reasoning and logic? What happened?
-
peace Fahad
Why include Jesus and exclude the Quran? You are picking and choosing.
include and exclude in what? We are talking about what the quran says about Mankind. Since Jesus was a man, he is part of mankind. And since all of mankind are made of sperms and eggs, it is correct to conclude that Jesus had a human father.
I am being stupid? When you haven't even addressed my arguments?
Yes, you were when you said that Jesus isn't included in mankind when the quran very clearly says he is. You are the only one who fails to see this and it's because you are blindly defending your interpretation.
In another thread you said that you don't know a squat about arabic, but with all due respect, you don't know a squat about Al-Quran either.
So it is better to take a first look at the verses relevant to the topic.
Can we just focus on what the quran is saying instead of talking about how much you think I know about "Al-Quran?"
You can't just make up your mind about what the quran is saying and then ignore everything contradictory to it. And that's what you are doing. So why don't we get back to whether Jesus is a human or not?It is dictated by Al-Quran. Read the verses about sunnat of Allah.
NOTHING is dictated by the quran. The quran says a lot of things, and we must verify all of those things to make sure if they are true or not. The universe, and ultimately god dictates the terms. Not a book.
The world isn't the way it is because the quran says so, but the quran is the way it is because the universe says so. That was my point.Hehe... You won't have any proof to back this, but Al-Quran is tafseel of Al-Kitab. So even if going by your understanding, al-quran still provides tafseel of 'sunnat of Allah from al-kitaab'. You were talking about reasoning and logic? What happened?
Yes, of course the quran explains the universe. But the quran doesn't "dictate" anything. If you dictate something, you command something. If you are a dictator, everyone listens to you unconditionally. So "dictate" is the wrong word. God's laws are not dictated by the quran, but they are explained in it. Hopefully that makes sense and I'm sure you'll agree with this.
and havn't I been addressing your arguments? -
peace Fahad
Why include Jesus and exclude the Quran? You are picking and choosing.
include and exclude in what? We are talking about what the quran says about Mankind.
We were also talking about al-quran being a guidance for mankind.
Since Jesus was a man, he is part of mankind. And since all of mankind are made of sperms and eggs, it is correct to conclude that Jesus had a human father.
And Jesus was born without any man touching Marium, as is evident from her story. So he didn't have a father.
Or, again, do you think al-quran was a guidance for pre-quranic mankind as well? You said it wasn't. So "Mankind" does not mean 'all mankind'.
I am being stupid? When you haven't even addressed my arguments?
Yes, you were when you said that Jesus isn't included in mankind when the quran very clearly says he is.
"Mankind" does not mean "all mankind". So Jesus can be excluded. Why is it so hard for you to understand a simple thing? Even when I have explained Marium's story, which makes it very clear?
You are the only one who fails to see this and it's because you are blindly defending your interpretation.
And you don't know a squat about Al-Quran. So you are the one who defends his interpretations blindly.
Can we just focus on what the quran is saying instead of talking about how much you think I know about "Al-Quran?"
If you can focus as well.
You can't just make up your mind about what the quran is saying and then ignore everything contradictory to it.
I didn't.
And that's what you are doing. So why don't we get back to whether Jesus is a human or not?
He was very human.
NOTHING is dictated by the quran. The quran says a lot of things, and we must verify all of those things to make sure if they are true or not.
It is the other way around. Al-Quran is The Criterion/Al-Furqan. We should verify all those things by it.
The universe, and ultimately god dictates the terms. Not a book.
And your proof is?
The world isn't the way it is because the quran says so, but the quran is the way it is because the universe says so. That was my point.
Yes, of course the quran explains the universe. But the quran doesn't "dictate" anything. If you dictate something, you command something. If you are a dictator, everyone listens to you unconditionally. So "dictate" is the wrong word. God's laws are not dictated by the quran, but they are explained in it. Hopefully that makes sense and I'm sure you'll agree with this.Al Quran gives many commands. Haven't you been reading it?
And I was asking you to read the verses about sunnat of Allah, so you can get an idea as to what it is.
and havn't I been addressing your arguments?
Which of my arguments have you addressed so far?