REF: virgin birth, what about Cloning ?
-
Peace,
Dear Tanveer, I'm gratefull to Allah you understand my post.
So let's get back to the subject. If a miracle is not supernatural, but just a misunderstood or not discovered Law of Nature. Then it is equal to all other Laws of Nature as gravity. So it contains no extra message then in my eyes. It is as much a sign as everything else in the creation. So let's move on.
To understand 6111, you must understand how Allah's Will is expressed in the Creation. Which is through His Laws. So the verse is in my eyes to be understood as that the mushrikeen will would only believe in miracles/signs if the Laws that express Allah's Will in the Universe would allow it. Yasha means 'will/wish', I never questioned that, it is about how this Will is expressed in the Universe. There is no verse in the Quran by my knowledge that says we will belief more through the Supernatural. Only through objective observation of the Universe and in trying to understand it.
I think we agree that it all will follow Allah's Laws. If you approach the verses as miracles or as mistranslated & misunderstood metaphors, we both agree that all signs of Allah will follow His Laws.
The Miracle is the Laws of the Universe itself. That is the proof of Allah's Power and Wisdom.
As for 2259, it is directly connected with the birds of Abraham.
2260 And when Abraham said "My Rabb, show me how you revive the dead." He said "Did you not believe?" he said "Yes certainly, and but for my heart and mind to be secure." He said "So take four from the birds, so take them close to you, then put on every mountain from them a portion, then call them , they come to you fast , and know that God is glorious, mighty, powerful and dignified, wise and judicious."
Here Abraham asks how the dead are raised. But which dead? In the Quran you have three sorts of dead
- Real bodily dead people who will be revived in the Hereafter.
- People who are dead of understanding and faith, and thus will not grow in
Iman, faith, so they can attain Paradise on earth and in the Hereafter. - Nations which are not powerful and mostly conquered and oppressed and
make no progress for their society to develop.
When we look at verses 2258 where a discussion is going on between Abraham and man, probably a ruler. Abraham says that only Allah really gives life and death, hajat and maut. These two words can be applied to humans, plants as well as nations. In 2259 we see a story on a person that walks through a city which is called dead and he wonders how God can revive it, thus making it alive with people again and make it flourish. God gives a metaphor that it is like any other resurrection. A revival of nation must, like the resurrection, follow the Divine Laws of Nature. In line with the previous verses, 2260 talks about the revival of nations as Abraham is promised a might nation and offspring. Most people read into it that Abraham cut up the birds and then call them, but the sentence preceding it tells us that he must bring the birds close to him, in other words, train and tame them, so they will respond to his call. So why train them and then cut them up? This is illogical. It is much simpler, the group was split up, the birds were not cut up, and put on every mountain. The birds were called and responded. In the same way will God train us through Revelation, the Quran, so we will respond to His call and be close to Him. And thus I believe verse 2259 falls under 37 and should not be taken literally.
And then you have this very misunderstood verse
5110 God said "O Jesus son of Mary, recall My blessings upon you and your mother that I supported you with the Holy Spirit; you spoke to the people in the cradle and in old age; and I taught you the Scripture and the wisdom, and the Torah, and the Injeel; and you would create from clay the shape of a bird, then blow into it and it becomes a bird by My leave; and you heal the blind and the leaper by My leave; and you brought out the dead by My leave. And I have restrained the Children of Israel from you, that you came to them with proofs; but those who rejected amongst them said "This is clearly magic!""The healings of Jesus are meant metaphorically. Like the words used in 349, the word is abras, one suffering from lukoderma, a disease that discolours the skin, and not judham, leprosy. Probably under evangelical influences did it got confused with leprosy. Metaphorically, however, it means, to have ones misfortune added to another. Ibn Faris says that al-biras means, barren portions of the desert, whence the metaphorical meaning of misfortune, so Jesus cured misfortunes by teaching people the truth. The Quran compares moral crimes to diseases, and calls those guilty of them, deaf, dumb and blind, as in 218 and diseased of the heart in 210 and even dead as in 2780, that is why the scripture, which is the Truth, is called a healing in 4144. It is again, shown that people distort the metaphorical meanings, and don't take the Quran as its guide how the read things. That Jesus his healings were taken literally is of course through evangelical influences in the Muslim world. It is part of the global collective thinking of all Muslims, including those follow the Quran alone. Multiple meanings of words are neglected and miracle-belief is prefered over more logical meanings of verses.
Tair has multiple meanings besides to bird, it also means omen as in 7131, 2747, 3619, actions and register of deeds as in 1713, it is also applied to non-winged beings, tayyar means fleet-flooted horse, and at-tairan is metaphorically used for marching to jihad. It also means destiny or fortune, as in this verse, as when birds were seen as messengers of the gods in ancient times. Also when birds as vultures were seen, people knew somebody is meeting or has met their fate, their doom. This is how meanings as destiny were also applied to Tair. Jesus people were in a deplorable state 3112, and he raised them up out of that dust/low state.
5110 When Allah will say, ?O Jesus, son of Mary! Recall My blessings upon you and your mother. I strengthened you with Sacred Revelation, enabled you to speak eloquently to the people while still in childhood, and also at a later age (345). I gave you revelation and wisdom including the Torah and the Gospel. Recall when you formed the state of your people's destiny and that you would raise them from dust up into the heights of glory by My leave (7176). You made people see the Truth otherwise given to blind following by My leave. You healed the wounds of inequity on people by My leave, and you gave a new meaning to life to those who were otherwise no better than dead by My leave (348, 3111, 6123). Recall, how I prevented the Children of Israel from harming you when you came to them with all evidence of the truth (4157). And those who were bent upon denying the truth said, ?This is nothing but clear deception.?
I rather first try to look for more logical explanations, before I go for the not-understood Laws of nature/miracle explanation. I have written a book on almost all the verses in the Quran that are seen as miracles. See the PDF attached to at the bottom of this post. It is still a work in progress.
It doesn't matter if we disagree on matters, but you will see I have good reasons why I believe what I believe as I have researched all the possibilities I could research till now. And I have found that there are no miracles in the Quran. Only mis-chosen Arabic meanings or misunderstood metaphors. This is my understanding, and I will always be open minded. If you have read my articles, you will see I have studied and follow Quantum Physics closely. But Quantum Field and other knowledge, doesn't immediately support belief in miracles, as I myself also don't see the Message in it. I have tried to understand the verses from a point of view that the meaning carry a message to me, and the more reasonable approach indeed gives me beautifull messages.
If you want to discuss my findings in my PDF, please first PM me, we will start a new thread together.
Peace my brother.
-
Dear bro Tanveer... The premise, as suggested by the topic itself and by your persistance, was that your wanted to rationalize your claim, first through parthenogenesis - which is not obeseved in mammals (since it would be a chain reaction and VERY observable if it happened), second that mammilian parthenogenesis would result in birth of female parthenogens - which you claimed may also have a chance of having XX type male birth (true), to which I tried to point out that not only are XX type males mostly sterile, but are also abnormal... Your premise and intention seems clear even if you were not explicit in your statement.
If I misunderstood you somehow, I apologize. But I only went by what you posted bro...
BTW, what do you know about me and my "true colours"?
Peace,
You don't even bother to read all my posts and then hurl accusations at me and put words in my mouth. I should've known this tendency of yours when you quoted a lot of scientifically inaccurate/incorrect things in your posts as facts without doing diligent research beforehand. It just destroys your credibility. Read my posts addressed to Tay and jonny_k above in addition to others and then compare it to what you fabricated/invented about me. When I expose your scientific ignorance about something this is how you respond ? Thank you for showing your true colors.
-
Peace "tanveer",
It is also possible to clone an XY MALE from an XY FEMALE (e.g. Swyer's syndrome) through first repair of the SRY mutation in a somatic cell (possible by gene splicing techniques) and then cloning that repaired somatic cell. Again I am not saying that this is EXACTLY how Jesus was created, but that it is scientifically possible to clone a physiological male from a physiological female. No human can, however, replicate the superior "be" technology of God !!
JK- I always appreciate the scientific approach. This is very interesting but what is an "xy" woman capable of conceiving? In other words does such a female have all the necessry organs required for conception? If yes then that would be amazing. But the problem remains why is GOD comparing Jesus with Adam if the latter also had parents? Or wait, maybe the definition is the problem. Adam didnt have human parents, say he came, and this is most probable according to science, as a result of a final transition from apelike to man, thus GOD at this stage created a new creature. From that time till now there has been no further macro evolution in the human beings except Jesus. Now in case of Jesus GOD could mean yet another transition. jesus was thus indeed a unique human, who was born without normal human parents just as adam. Thus UNIQUE BIRTH could be the similarity of both. What do u guys say abt tht? GOD Bless!
-
Peace Tanveer,
No this debate is not fruitless or waste of time. For details please see my reply to Khizar above and many other posts in which I have been repeating that same thing. The discussion is not to exactly explain Jesus's birth but to disprove some of Arnold's misinterpretations of some qur'aanic verses such as 4913 and 5345-46, thereby proving that Jesus's virgin birth does not contradict qur'aan, and is POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONTRADICTING QUR'AAN.
Got it. I guess those weren't the fruits I was looking for
Arnold rejects Jesus's virgin birth on the basis of those misinterpretations whereby he tries to prove that because virgin birth in humans is impossible (cloning proves otherwise), and that a pair always arises from a sperm (cloning and parthenogenesis proves otherwise), so Jesus's virgin birth is impossible as it would contradict qur'aan (based on his misinterpretations), and hence misinterprets Mary's reaction to the good news based on these other misinterpretations which I have disproven by various scientific facts.
Thanks for the explanation. Though I can't speak for Arnold, based on his posts thus far, I don't think his basis is hinged solely on the contradiction. Anyway, as for me, my beef is with the sporadic intervention, the historical coincidence, and the comparison to Adam. The science jargon is out of my league and doesn't really get to the heart of the matter imo.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Johnny,
Thus UNIQUE BIRTH could be the similarity of both. What do u guys say abt tht?
I say the similarity is already explained in 359...
The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.You'll notice the qur'an also clearly spells out that all humans were created this way, and that all life comes from water. So, was the Isa-dust different than our dust? I don't believe so. The dust, imo, has some connection to the primordial soup theory - followed by the "be" command (aka lightning) which originated biological life on earth.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace bro "tay",
Peace Johnny,
I say the similarity is already explained in 359...
The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.You'll notice the qur'an also clearly spells out that all humans were created this way, and that all life comes from water. So, was the Isa-dust different than our dust? I don't believe so. The dust, imo, has some connection to the primordial soup theory - followed by the "be" command (aka lightning) which originated biological life on earth.
Peace,
TayJK- Oh and tht reminds me of another beautiful thing James Randi said "We are all made of star dust" since there it came from oriinally. Marvellous aint it? Knowing that and seeing we are still fighting with one another coz of baseless religiosity and quackery greatly disturns me. So ofcourse the Isa dust aint different from ours just like the Adam dust aint different from us. But Adam and Isa are different from us in a way they resulted as a result of a transition. Punctuated equillibrium also seems to make sense btw. The last apelike creatures had in their genes the code now ready to give birth to a new creature which was Adam and his mate. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Johnny,
What i mean is tht Adam and Isa were created differently than we.
The question still stands...what makes you think they were created different when the qur'an has them created from dust and "be" like the rest of us?
They were the result of a transition, we aint.
Personally, my view is that "adam" represents the first generation of evolved humans. Certainly, that's a transition, but still not different than us. We are, "bani adam", still transitional, as our facial hair gets thinner and thinner, and our canine teeth round out.
But how do you define the transition of Isa? According to the qur'an, he was just a human messenger who had to eat food like the rest of us.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace bro "tay",
Peace Johnny,
The question still stands...what makes you think they were created different when the qur'an has them created from dust and "be" like the rest of us?
JK- I think the focus is more on the word be here than dust. "be" here i believe is a change in formation i.e. trnasition. Both Adam and Isa thus were born in a different way than us BUT are yet simialr human beings. As to why GOD mentions the dust must also have a reason i admit n i believe its a chemical in that that was changed/manipulated by the laws said by GOD well in the beginning and ofcourse He continues to control everything at every instant.
Personally, my view is that "adam" represents the first generation of evolved humans. Certainly, that's a transition, but still not different than us. We are, "bani adam", still transitional, as our facial hair gets thinner and thinner, and our canine teeth round out.
JK- The canine teeth is a minor change which i wouldnt consider as a transition. As for Adam representing more than one human thts not necessary and i believe punctuated equillibrium makes more sense. This is also why we dont find a continuity of transitional fossils but distinct ones which can now taking the microbiological patterns into account, be shown as distinct stages of creation.
But how do you define the transition of Isa? According to the qur'an, he was just a human messenger who had to eat food like the rest of us.
Peace,
TayJK- As i mentioned above his birth was different, otherwise hes a human like us and adam. GOD Bless!
-
Peace maxq,
Dear bro Tanveer... The premise, as suggested by the topic itself and by your persistance, was that your wanted to rationalize your claim, first through parthenogenesis - which is not obeseved in mammals (since it would be a chain reaction and VERY observable if it happened), second that mammilian parthenogenesis would result in birth of female parthenogens - which you claimed may also have a chance of having XX type male birth (true), to which I tried to point out that not only are XX type males mostly sterile, but are also abnormal... Your premise and intention seems clear even if you were not explicit in your statement.
If I misunderstood you somehow, I apologize. But I only went by what you posted bro...
The topic is virgin birth and cloning, not virgin birth OF JESUS. Looks like you still haven't read my posts. So I will have to quote myself and do your work for you
My intention and aim in this thread was
-
To show that Arnold's interpretation of 4913 and 5345-46 being all inclusive and not general and thus not allowing the exception of a literal virgin birth, is fallacious/incorrect by giving examples of cloning and parthenogenesis, and by showing that "kullu"/all/every is nowhere to be found in those verses.
-
To discuss the possibility of virgin birth, by showing the possibility of virgin birth through cloning and by reminding that God is capable of doing all things.
-
To show that the never changing God's sunnat/way per al-qur'aan is limited only to giving evil respite for some time and then completely destroying it, and not applicable to ALL natural laws.
This thread is not about sun gods, symbolic versus literal interpretations, or frequency of God's interventions and I would urge all the posters to kindly refrain from going off topic.
We should heed the message of 37 and try to focus primarily on the muhkamat verses of al-qur'aan. We should try to understand AND implement the basic core message of al-qur'aan which is to believe in God and the Last Day and to be righteous. We should not endlessly engage in debating/discussing/trying to figure out the true meanings of the mutashabihat verses, keeping in mind that only God knows the true meaning of those verses. 37 is proof that understanding the mutashabihat verses of al-qur'aan is not required/necessary for our guidance because we might never be able to figure out their true meaning.
It is possible that eventually The God might enlighten us with the true meaning of those verses, and until then we should be patient and affirm The God's signs, and realize that our knowledge could be incomplete/imperfect/faulty and not be arrogant that we know it all right now, thus rejecting The God's signs just because we cannot understand them. The premise of being able to understand ALL of The God's signs assumes human perfection and infallibility which are only The God's attributes.
I gave the exampe of cloning and parthenogenesis to disprove Arnold's assertions that virgin birth in general is impossible (due to his misinterpretation of 4913), and that pairs result only from sperms (due to his misinterpretation of "nutfatin" in 5345-46) and not to show that it exactly explains Jesus's birth (Tay, please note, cuz you have failed to note this in my past posts). That, however, is still possible by the cloning of an XY male out of an XY female, for example, Swyer's syndrome, by first repairing the SRY mutation in a certain somatic cell and then cloning it. That is not exactly how Jesus was created, but it just shows that it is humanly possible. It is impossible for humans to replicate the superior "be" technology of God
I gave the example of cloning not to prove that Jesus's birth was exactly like that but to disprove Arnold's misinterpretation of virgin birth IN GENERAL of being impossible in humans (cloning proves virgin birth is possible), and to disprove his misinterpretation that a pair is created ONLY by a sperm (cloning can create male or female without a sperm).
-
-
Peace Arnold,
Yasha cannot mean laws, it means will. God's will does not equate laws. His laws are according to His will but His will is not according to His laws. His laws are subservient to His will.
For example using my will I can switch a light bulb on or off using the same laws with two different outcomes. Will leads to outcomes through laws and thus will is separate from laws.
Abraham splitting four birds and putting them in four corners and then calling them is nothing extraordinary. The wording of 2260 clearly suggests a miracle of cutting the bird because of the question "My Lord, show me how you resurrect the dead" thus God's response indicates the actual cutting up of one bird thereby killing it and then resurrecting it. Sorry bro, your interpretation doesn't fly.
Your rendition of 5110 and 2259 has similar logical flaws and your translation doesn't follow the grammar and the arabic sentence structure of the verse.
I guess I will have to agree to disagree with your interpretations.
Peace
-
Peace jonny_k,
Thus UNIQUE BIRTH could be the similarity of both
Agreed
-
Salam dear Jonny, Tay and all,
Here is a new article on Evolution and Creation based on the Quran and science
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13263.0
-
Peace Arnold,
Yasha cannot mean laws, it means will. God's will does not equate laws. His laws are according to His will but His will is not according to His laws. His laws are subservient to His will.
His Will is EXPRESSED by His Laws. Difference of wording.
Abraham splitting four birds and putting them in four corners and then calling them is nothing extraordinary. The wording of 2260 clearly suggests a miracle of cutting the bird because of the question "My Lord, show me how you resurrect the dead" thus God's response indicates the actual cutting up of one bird thereby killing it and then resurrecting it. Sorry bro, your interpretation doesn't fly.
It doesn't fly for you which is fine. The Quran uses the word 'dead' for several things. Just as Al-Qijamah means literally 'the rising of a man in one go' and refers to the literal rising of a person who sat or lied on the ground and stood up in one jump. In the Quran it used for the resurrection in the Afterlife as well as the rising of nations and individuals. The Quran uses many metaphorical uses of the Arabic, which are completely ignored.
Your rendition of 5110 has similar logical flaws and your translation doesn't follow the grammar and the arabic sentence structure of the verse.
I have tried to make the sentence as logical as I can in English. I can also make a literal translation of the verse, but it will still not refer to a miracle
5110 When Allah said "You Jesus Mary's son, remember My blessing on you and on your mother, when I supported you with the Sanctimonious Spirit, you speak to the people in the cradle and aged approximately between thirty to fifty years (4615), and when I instructed you The Book , and the wisdom , and the Torah, and the Gospel, and when you create as a form of the destiny/Tair (of your people 3112) with My permission, so you blow in it, so it will be flying/rising in the air/attain hights, with My permission, and you cure and heal the blind (of Rejection 218 and 2781), and the misfortunes/Abrasa with My permission, and when you bring out the deads (of belief 2780) with My permission, and when I prevented Israel's sons and daughters from you, when you came to them with the evidences, so those who disbelieved from them said "That that is except clear and evident Faslehood presented as Truth/Sihr."
Al-biras means, barren portions of the desert/ to have ones misfortune added to another
Tair means Bird/actions and register of deeds/ fleet-flooted horse/ marching to jihad/ destiny/ fortune
Sihr means Falsehood shown as Truth/ sorcery/ magic/ illusion/ Witchcraft/ Deception/ Turning of a thing from its proper manner to another manner/ Mischief/ Mesmerism.
We can disagree on the interpretation, that is no problem, but you cannot say it is grammatically impossible. This is clear nonsense. I use the Quran to explain itself. When the Quran itself uses examples as dead and blind for Rejecters, why not now in this verse? You reject this approach, but you cannot reject the possibility. Same holds for all verses I approach differently.
Peace brother.
-
Peace all,
when you create as a form of the destiny/Tair (of your people 3112) with My permission, so you blow in it, so it will be flying/rising in the air/attain hights, with My permission,
As everyone can see, this portion of the translation of 5110 as per bro Arnold becomes nonsensical. Similarly, the metaphorical rendering of verses like 2260 becomes illogical and nonsensical too. Don't take this personally bro Arnold.
-
Peace bro "tanveer",
Abraham splitting four birds and putting them in four corners and then calling them is nothing extraordinary. The wording of 2260 clearly suggests a miracle of cutting the bird because of the question "My Lord, show me how you resurrect the dead" thus God's response indicates the actual cutting up of one bird thereby killing it and then resurrecting it. Sorry bro, your interpretation doesn't fly.
JK- It would be interesting if these incidences would be repeated some where in the future and i believe thts why GOD mentioned them. Now first lets explain how this could have happned by evolutionary processes. Abraham cuts the bird into four pieces and palces a piece in a corner. Now how do the peices come together again? was there already something planted in the genetical code of that bird which Abraham was made to pick up? Also when we see Jesus sheped a bird and made it come alive by GOD's Will how can this be explained in terms of evolutionary processes? or was it just sped up evolution? Did GOD here tweek the system i.e. did He directly intervene to allow this to happen? If yes then there must be a lesson in it for us. 1st how was it done? was the energy passed into the shaped bird through a wormhole which altered the molecular structure to become immediate dna thus making it alive? Will this also be our way of being recereated on DOJ? it seems yes. indeed in an episode of the fantastic four i saw a professor throwing some beam on a stone lion and it became alive. Ofcourse it's sciencefiction but by altering the molecular structure in a complex way this can be achieved. GOD Bless!
-
Peace all,
As everyone can see, this portion of the translation of 5110 as per bro Arnold becomes nonsensical. Similarly, the metaphorical rendering of verses like 2260 becomes illogical and nonsensical too. Don't take this personally bro Arnold.
Peace I don't bro It is your mind making it nonsensical. Mine see's it perfectly, and many others see it also. Our conciousness at this moment decides our perspective. We can not judge each others perspectives, only respect it and agree ot disagree with it.
-
dear all
An interesting debate,
in the end, as a neutral observer i would like to comment , i found tanveer's "Reasoning" more logical and would tend to agree with his concept.
Mr guest '' i would luv to read more from you on the forum (with a proper nick )and would appreciate if you can devote some more time.
Nadia, reading your comments is always very enlightening.
Arnold , please continue shooting in the dark , i am sure one day you will be able to score a hit .without venturing into unknown frontiers, one is not expected to stumble upon new discoveries isnt it?
peace
siki -
Salaam dear Siki,
Your comment is not only arrogant and I must say very un-peaceful, you will also have a very hard time answering this to prove your 'neutral' observation to be of any value
There is clear mention of the father of prophet Jesus, yet we strongly believe that he did not have a father. In a way we are refusing to accept the truth propounded by the verse, or Quran in general.
In surah An-Aam verse 84-87 Allah mentions names of 18 prophets at a stretch. Of these, verse 86 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 88 Allah goes on to say that
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
Yusuf Ali (To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren; ?..
Pickthall With some of their forefathers and their offspring, and their brethren; ??
Shakir And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren;
Rodwell And some of their fathers, and of their offspring, and of their brethren ?.
Hilali & Khan And also some of their fathers and their progeny and their brethren,?
Irving We picked out some of their forefathers, their offspring and their brethren....
Arberry And of their fathers, and of their seed, and of their brethren;....In the verse 688, the Arabic words "?. Wa min aaba ihim?" is critical. Let me break down the words Wa means And, Min means From Aaba means Fathers Ihim means Among theirs. Together it means ?. And from among their fathers?.
Muslim scholars are in jeopardy with this statement from Allah. They desperately try to justify their faith that Jesus did not have father. So now they start twisting the meaning and interpretation. Let us briefly analyze various interpretations.
One interpretation is that "some" of their fathers (Pickthall, Hilali & Khan, Irving) were chosen and guided. However, the statement does not say some HAD fathers and they were guided and some DID NOT have fathers and were not guided. Please review again before we proceed.
Another interpretation is that the word 'aaba ihim' means 'of their forefathers' (Pickthall, Irving). Meaning of Aaba is not forefather but father. I still would give benefit of doubt. Now if Isa did not have a father how can he have a forefather? The extreme twisting of the word 'aaba' is ancestor, predecessor or progenitor. What ever it may be, a male person cannot have a forefather or a progenitor or ancestor without a father.
In order to argue that Jesus cannot have a father, some Muslims suggest that 'forefather' can mean ancestors from mother's side. Thus in case of Jesusancestors from mother's side were guided. At this time I would leave this strange interpretation open for further discussion. If several other verses suggest that Jesus did not have a father, then 'forefather' may be interpreted as ancestors from mother's side. On the other hand, if several verses suggest that Jesus have had a father, then use of the word 'forefather' is far fetched and cannot mean ancestors from the mother's side. Except for Pickthall and Irving, all other translators translated the word ?aaba? as ?fathers? and not forefathers.
At this time I want to emphasize that if Jesus did not have a father then the verse 688 should not have included his name or should have specifically stated that illa Isa or except Isa. Or would you say it was an oversight (nauzubillah!) on part of Allah!!! If the argument is that some HAD fathers, then which other prophet did not have a father? Can you tell me who was born without a father other than Jesus?
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 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 Jesuswe make the exception that he did not have a father. We make this exception because Bible tells that Jesus did not have a father, and the Quran addresses him as Son of Maryam.
Muslims are more interested to uphold the Biblical statement at the cost of the Quranic declaration!!! But then the people who claim to follow the Quran alone uphold it also, instead of seeing that they are completely influenced by the traditional interpretation. Now they try to make a rare natural phenomena to be proof of miracles, while this would not make it a miracle, but just a rare natural phenomena as a solar-eclipse. Instead going for the most logical explanation, people hang on to the miracle belief, not because it is Truth, but because they want miracles. This is the real factor involved. The Creation of the Universe, of us, is not enough as proof for Allah's Power and Knowledge. No miracle will guide people, there is no knowledge to gain from it. Allah can do everything, this can already be seen by the Creation itself.
Jesus(pbuh) is the Kalimah of Allah
The Quran stated that Jesus is Kalimah of Allah. Based on this, the Muslims 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
334 "O Maryam, surely Allah gives thee glad tidings with a word (kalimah) from Him, whose name is the Masih Isa, son of Mryam?
4171 The Masih, - Isa son of Maryam, is but a messenger of Allah, and His word (kalimah) which He imparted towards Maryam
There are lots of meandering explanations available to drive home the point that the use of the word Kalimah caused pregnancy. For a brief moment I would like to give benefit of doubt to this notion; because I want to bring in another argument. What about Yahya?Do you know that he too is Kalimah of Allah? How come in his case the use of the same word Kalimah did not cause a pregnancy without a conjugal relation? Or would you volunteer to say that Yahya was also born without a father or without a mother for that matter? Let us visit the verse. Please note, here Allah is talking to Zakariya.
338 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?
340 Zechariah prayed to Allah, but then wondered, ?My Lord! How could I have a son when old age has overtaken me already and my wife is barren?? He said, ?So it will be, Allah does everything according to His Laws.? (The infertility in his wife was cured 2190).
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 2190.
2190 And so We responded to him, and bestowed upon him Yahya, after making his wife fit to bear him a child. And verily, they (parents and son) used to race in doing good works, and remembered Us in situations of hope or fear. And they were always humble before Us
To recap, we find that although Yahya(pbuh) is also Kalimah of Allah, there is nothing unusual or paranormal in his birth. More precisely saying, Yahya(pbuh) 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 18109, 3127, 634, 6116, 1064, 1827 verses.
18109 Say, "If all the sea were ink for my Sustainer?s Words, the sea would indeed be exhausted before my Sustainer?s Words are exhausted! And thus it would be if We were to add to it sea upon sea.? (3127).
3127 And if all the trees on earth were pens, and the sea were ink, with seven more seas yet added, the Words of Allah would not be exhausted (18109). Verily, Allah is Almighty, Wise.
Isa(pbuh) and Yahya(pbuh) 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(pbuh) respectively. The word Kalimah by itself did not act as germ cell.
Likeness of Jesus(pbuh) and Adam(pbuh)
A verse of Surah Al-e-Imran 358 is often used to justify that Jesus(pbuh) was born without a father. The verse states that the likeness of Jesus(pbuh) is the likeness of Adam(pbuh). The general conclusion of Muslims is that the "likeness" relates to their unusual birth. They argue that Adam(pbuh) was "born" without a father and a mother, so it is possible for Jesus(pbuh) to take birth without a father! I am little leery about it. Don't you think this is rather a forced conclusion? Let us read the verse from Surah Al-e-Imran to explore the issue of likeness.
359 Verily, with Allah, the example (or nature) of Jesus is that of Adam (other humans) who were initially created from dust and then evolved through different stages of life (225, 3020). He created him (mankind) beginning from inorganic matter, then He said unto him, ?Be! And he is.? (The process of procreation of the humans goes on, ?IS?. 'Kun fayakoon' = The moment Allah decrees a thing, it starts happening).
First, let us check what likeness the two prophets might have regarding birth
- Adam(pbuh) is said to have been born without a father and a mother. So Jesus(pbuh) too should not have a father and a mother. Absence of only father will not establish the likeness.
- Jesus(pbuh) is son of Maryam. Adam(pbuh) too should be son of Maryam, or at least son of a woman. If not, then it is not a true likeness.
- Adam was not ?born? - he was created, whereas Jesus(pbuh) 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?
- Adam is supposed to have been created a full-grown adult man. Jesus(pbuh) 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.
- Adam(pbuh) was supposedly created in the Heaven and sent down on earth. Jesus(pbuh) should have been created in the Heaven and sent down on earth. If not then there is is no likeness in their creation.
- Jesus(pbuh) underwent a normal gestation in his mother's womb. Adam(pbuh) should have passed through gestation period in his mother's (oops!) womb! If not, then there is no likeness in their birth.
- Adam was created from clay or teen (712; 1761; 3871, 76). Please note, in case of Isa, the word teen was not 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 1837; 225; 3020; 3511; 4067). Therefore how is Isa's creation any different from the creation of human being?
225 O Mankind! If you are in doubt that humanity will one day stand at its feet, and that you will be resurrected back to life after death, consider the process of your own evolution. We have created you in stages From dust, then from male and female gametes, then from a zygote, then from an embryo, shapely and first shapeless. We thus clearly explain things for you. The embryo and then the fetus stay in the womb until an appointed term according to Our Laws. Then We bring you forth as infants and carry you to maturity. While some of you die young, others live to the feeblest old age so that they know nothing after knowing much. (Resurgence of humanity can take place just as) you, O Prophet, see a dry barren land, but when We send down water on it, it vibrates with life and grows all kinds of beautiful plants.
In 1922-23 Mary is shown grieving, then talking to her husband. Although married, they made a violation of the normal sanctuary rules, as she became pregnant in the non-holy months, so she fled the temple for a while and labor pains all add to her grief which she is expressing. This is why her family acted so offended in 1927, and said she had done wrong by breaking the custom as she was part of a Royal Family. This is why they remind her of her lineage. In 1928 she is said to have done bagiyaa, which means to go beyond the bounds of custom. All royal couples were expected to only procreate in specific months, so that their offspring would be born in Jewish Holy months. Sex outside of these months were seen as a grave offence. In 1925 we are told Jesus was born when the dates are ripe. In Palestine this means between late September and early October. This period falls outside of the Jewish Holy Months as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are writings of the Nazarene Temple where Mary lived and Jesus was part of. The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and were found in 1945. These Scrolls are untampered and did not go through a long chain of oral tradition or rewritings. So they give a complete and authentic report of the Nazerene customs and beliefs.
Verse 345 clearly gives her news of the birth of a child and therefore the particular incident referred to in 344 is the incident of her marriage. The casting of lots and the contention as to who would have her in his charge could not mean anything but her charge as a wife. Lots were evidently cast because as a child she had been dedicated to the sanctuary (temple), and it is now by a lot only that she could be given away in marriage. As said before, as she being from a holy family, she was chosen to bear children to keep the bloodline intact.
Thus in verse (345) quoted below, when she was given the good news of a son being born to her, she was perhaps not informed that her marriage had been decided. Hence, she says that man had not touched her yet. And she was told in reply, 'Even so'; i.e., the child will be born by Allah bringing about the circumstances which result in the birth of a child. The words do not show that she would conceive out of the ordinary course of nature. Nor do the words that follow prove anything beyond the simple fact that Mary must give birth to a son in accordance with the prophecy. The whole of creation is brought about, we are told again and again, by the divine word Kun (Be), yet no one supposes that creation is not brought about according to the laws of nature. Kun only applies to a certainty, it doesn't refer to any timeperiod or that any Law of Nature will be broken.
(345-47) (And remember) when the angels said O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah). He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous. She said O my Sustainer! How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me? (The angel) answered Thus it is Allah creates what He wills when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, 'Be' -- and it is.
It is remarkable that the Qur'an makes no mention at all of Mary's husband, and in this respect, these circumstances bear a strong resemblance to those connected with Moses' birth, for there, too, no mention at all is made of Moses' father. The mere fact, therefore, that there is no mention of Jesus' father is not sufficient to show that Jesus had no father.
Plus the people who accussed Mary of 'bagiyaa/breaking the borders of custom' were the same people who believed giving a child to the Temple is something that would please Allah. So their opinion in matters of Truth are to be taken very lightly.
All these facts together completely destroy the belief in the 'virginbirth'. If you call this 'shooting in the dark' then I wonder what people are doing who do believe in supernatural miracles, shooting into black holes? As long as you cannot answer these questions, I suggest you should be more gentle with your words next time.
Here is a complete rebuttal on miracle-belief, it is not perfected as it is a work in progress. This is only the first version, am already busy with the second version
Evolution of Thinking