Jesus VS Isa

[NunHolidayPseudoEidRex]

Peace san,

Peace, NunHolidayPseudoEidRex  (hey, it's not fair, your id's much longer than mine!  )

Holiday or Eid which my name translates as will do fine.

Thank you for the additional references.

The text in red (spouse-less case), however, could you please tell us how did you get that understanding?

Deduced by careful study of the inheritance verses without contradictory meaning.

Referencing from PRL, i get this:
Kaf-Lam-Lam = To lose father and child, lose direct heirs, be weary, tired, weak, have only remote relations.

Arabic dictionaries were written between the 13th - 19th centuries parroting someone's conjectures/verdict from the past and according to traditions, كلالة Kalala was never really understood; Ibn Kathir wrote: ?If a man or a woman was left in Kalalah? derivative of Iklil or ?crown that surrounds the head? and was conjectured as having neither ascendants nor descendants leading to contradiction evident by the simple example:

What amount to give an only sister; the 1/6 specified in 4:12 or 1/2 specified in 4:176?

See also Sahih Muslim Book #011, Hadith #3937
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=11&translator=2&start=10&number=3937

Abu Talha reported: 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on Friday and made a mention of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he also made a mention of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and then said: I do not leave behind me any problem more difficult than that of Kalala. I did not refer to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more repeatedly than in case of the problem of Kalala, and he (the Holy Prophet) never showed more annoyance to me than in regard to this problem, so much so that he struck my chest with his fingers and said: 'Umar, does the verse revealed in summer season, at the end of Sura al-Nisa' not suffice you? Hadrat 'Umar (then) said: If I live I would give such verdict about (Kalala) that everyone would be able to decide whether he reads the Qur'an or he does not.

...continuing from the post above (i was going to wait for NunHolidayPseudoEidRex's reply ... but never mind)

1) Imra'a and kalaalatan

From the context of verse 4:12 we can get the picture of a man/woman who have no direct ascendant/descendant to inherit to, and has brother/sister to inherit to. Yet nothing about being "spouseless" mentioned--in fact, the verse  says,

"And for you is half of what your spouses/wives (azwaajukum) leave if they have no child, if they have child(ren) ..." .

"And for the spouses/wives is one fourth of what you leave if you have no child, if you have child(ren) ..."

"And if a man (rajulun) to inherit have no direct ascendant/descendant (kalaalatan) or a woman (Imra'atun), and has a brother or a sister, ... "

The only thing which can be proven from that verse is that an Imra'a could be a kalaalatan, but not necessarily one.

Yet, "kalaalatan" does not equal "spouseless".


and


2) Who, "offspring/descendants one of the other" (3:34)?

* Imra'atu-`Imran and `Imran (3:35) ?

* Or Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran (3:33) ?

Hint: 3:35 is started with  اذ

A spouse regardless of gender can never inherit together with a sibling; example: inheritors sister, wife

1 ? 1/4 wife ? 1/6 sister = 7/12 unallocated!

Kalalah is spouse-less and fatherless with toggle as to which verse to exactly use being specified:

Kalala with Child use 4:12...and if was a man to be inherited Kalālatan or a woman
Kalala NO Child use 4:176 say: "God decrees in alkalalati, if human died, not for him a child

Also see post/thread: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16179.msg207587#msg207587

Imr?ata can be a woman of the house or family tree of ImraAn or simply a woman e.g. the Queen?

27:23 امراة  تملكهم -- a woman, she rules them

Notice chronology, best read without verse #s (a later addition) which often cause confusion by taking things out of context...

That God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above the Alamin (mankind) offspring one of the other, and God Hearing, Knower; اذ when قالت she said امراة a woman of عمران Imran

As stated it's important to understand cultures and even to this day we have tribes amongst various clans who refer to themselves as descents of the house of their prominent ancestors.

Peace

[David_K]

Peace Pazuzu

Great post. Your arguments are rational, solid and very convincing. Truly thoughtprovoking. The arguments should make everyone of us to question everything we have learned about the story of Jesus from mainstream sources. Thanks for sharing this truthful information with us. And if something about the mainstream story of Jesus is falsehood, it is bound to vanish:   

Quran
21:18 Nay, We hurl the truth against the falsehood, and it knocks out the
latter. And certainly falsehood has to vanish. And there is destruction for
those of you who contrive falsehood.

I hope more people will read this thread.

[Pazuzu]

Plenty more is yet to come.

I will address the issue of "Al-Imran", and all the "players" involved (for member san   ) to prove:

1) That Isa, the son of Maryam could NOT have been Jesus the son of the carpenter. There is a mixup of identities.
2) That the Muslims don't read the Quran. They recite it like zombies. Had they read it and reflected upon its verses, as God wants them to, they would have disowned 99% of their beliefs.
3) Most importantly, I will show you just HOW this confusion came to be, and the role that Paul played in it.

To David_K I say:

You must understand that we live (and have been living) in a sensored world. The unholy triangle of Pharaoh - Hamann - Qaroon  (politicians, clergy, financiers) have been enslaving mankind since forever. This truth is slowly starting to dawn and I believe that we are on the verge of a global awakening.

We have been living in a web of illusions and lies set up by the unholy triangle to subdue mankind into slavery. There is a famous saying: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free".

Remember what Moses did?  The story of Moses and his stand against Pharaoh and his servants is best understood as a METAPHOR. It talks about a man who stood face to face with the unholy triangle and exposed their falsehoods. He made the servants of Pharaoh (the "sahara" - his henchmen, and supporters) see the illusion that they have been living under.

This unholy triangle is still alive and well today, and unless it is toppled, we will continue to be slaves for all eternity.

You know exactly of whom I speak.

[hope4]

Selam Pazuzu

May I ask what is the sources to your information? I really like reading your posts and it is truely thought provoking.

[David_K]

Peace Pazuzu

I know. The world we live in based on the Pyramide system where the elites on the top are exploiting those on the bottom. The wealthy on the top of the pyramide do what they want without much work, while does on the bottom have to struggle to pay for basic necessities like food and water. The elite gave us all these toys and gadgets to make us busy so that we won't learn anything about politics, religion and other things which really matter in life. They constantly create new mobile phones, cars, and other gadgets that make our life easier according to them. Off course technology can make our life easier, but easier does not necessarily mean better. They sell us a lots of crap we don't need. You don't need to buy the most trendy mobile every 6 months.

They say that we live in advanced society, but still in year 2009 our cars pollute the earth. If we are so advanced, then why did people in the past pollute the earth less than us? There is an abundance of everything we need to lead a happy and prosperous life, but the whealthy take the natural resources and put it in the hands of their partners. They don't share it with everyone. They created the "overpopulation myth" (google) so that we will accept wars. Because if people accept that the world can never have more than a certain amount of people in it, then they will not protest against the depopulation methods of the elites. There is plenty of space for all the people in the world. For example, lots of huge areas in Russia, Africa and latin america has lots of space for much more people. When in japan (which is a very little country) it lives more than 120 million people, then in russia, africa or latin america (which have huge areal), there is lots of space for more people. The idea of overpopulation is forced on people to condition them to accept wars. If human beings created sustainable communities all over the world, there would be enough space for more people than 6 billion, and maybe even more than 20 billion, and there would certainly be enough resources and food for everyone. God's earth is spacious. Society lied to us:

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed - Gandhi

The "scarcity myth" have also conditioned people to believe there is not enough resources for mankind.  

This is the life of the average joe:

The first 25 years of your life you go to school...
then you work from 9-5 like a donkey another 40 years to pay your loans and bills...  
then you can relax the last 5 years of your life in oldness...
This is what is called human ignorance...

However, there is still hope. There are many solutions for those who wish to live rationally. Those who escape "the matrix of our society" can lead happy lives and don't have to work for a boss that threats them like an animal. They can become their own bosses and start their own companies. All they need to do is to finish their education, and when they are around 26-30 years old they can become free agents and work where they work in any country they want in the world.

I also believe that we are on the verge of global awakening.

We think our civilization is so great, but our world is still backwards:

Just look at us, everything is backwards. Everything is upside-down. doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroy spirituality - Michael ellner

[san]

Peace san,

Holiday or Eid which my name translates as will do fine.

Peace Nun, Eid, ...

i've been looking at the verses 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176, and i really think that a serious amount of attention must be put onto them, perhaps by freeing ourselves  entirely from the 'traditional' translations. Syntactical analysis need to be conducted first (especially on the sequence rijaalun, kalaalatan, imra'atun). i can't yet agree/disagree with your view on this matter.

However, to get back on topic, the Quran is consistent with the meaning of the words used. So if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence.

For example:

Imra'ata `Imraan
Imra'ata Nuh
Imra'ata Lut
Imra'ata Fir`aun

`Iysaa 'ubnu Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibni Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibna Maryam
... 'ibnay Adam (5:27)
... Nuhun 'ibnahu (11:42)
... Luqman li'ibnihi: ... ya bunayya (31:13)
... 'ibnaka (12:81, Yusuf's story)
... wa 'ib'nahaa (21:91)
The one Musa is talking to, said to his brother: 'ibna 'umma! (7:150) (hint: musa li 'akhihi haruna 7:142)
Harun to his brother: yaa 'bna 'umma (20:92-94)

Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan (66:12)
'ibnatayya (28:27)


Let me repeat: if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence. For example, if you were to take the expression "Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan" as "Maryam descendant of `Imraan", then to make things in harmony:

for 28:27 it would be:
(The father, or, the ascendant/ancestor) said (to Musa): 'Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these, my two descendants, ...'

for 7:150 it would be:
he said (to his brother, or, to the descendant of another branch of his ancestor): 'Descendant of my ancestor-mother! Indeed, the people judged me as weak ...'

and then there are still a lot more verses to make in harmony with the great ancestor/descendant view...

Notice chronology, best read without verse #s (a later addition) which often cause confusion by taking things out of context...

That God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above the Alamin (mankind) offspring one of the other, and God Hearing, Knower; اذ when قالت she said امراة a woman of عمران Imran

True, chronology is the keyword. And then there is also another keyword: "continuity". Please don't pay attention to the verse numbers, but instead pay attention the actual syntax/adverbs/conjunctions used. 'Time adverb' Idh / اذ / when may connect the chronology of the events succeeding its occurrence. Please observe sura 110 for example. In 3:35, there is not even a conjunction "wa / و / and" before the "Idh", beginning the verse, which should give us a clue of the "chronology" and "continuity" between the verses. Everyone can find each occurence of Idh beginning a verse, and analyze for him/herself the continuity/chronology between that verse and the preceding verse.
(ed: try this link for concordance "Idh / اذ / when", look for only "idh" as first word: sura:verse:1 )

To make it fair, however, let's replace the end of verses with comma -- i.e., to remove the issue of the verse numbering -- to see if they are indeed logically connected (or not).

3:34-3:35  :  " ... offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower, when she said, a woman of Imran ..."

3:33-3:34  :  " ... , and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above the `alamin, offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower... "

Honestly, which one do you see as logically connected? Which sequence is in continuity?

I'm not saying that 3:33-34 is not connected with 3:35-, in fact, 3:35- describes just how the the line of nabiyyin is continued as "offspring one of the other". `Imraan himself is indeed not 'present' in the verses describing Maryam's birth. The question which should arise: What happened with the father of Maryam in the time of her birth? And why did Maryam was put under the care of Zakariyya?

As stated it's important to understand cultures and even to this day we have tribes amongst various clans who refer to themselves as descents of the house of their prominent ancestors.

Peace

Of course it is important and that practice is understandable, however it doesn't mean that the Qur'aan, precise on its wording, conforms to their practice.

I hope this would contribute to the topic discussed.


Peace

[NunHolidayPseudoEidRex]

Peace san,

i've been looking at the verses 4:11, 4:12 and 4:176, and i really think that a serious amount of attention must be put onto them, perhaps by freeing ourselves  entirely from the 'traditional' translations. Syntactical analysis need to be conducted first (especially on the sequence rijaalun, kalaalatan, imra'atun). i can't yet agree/disagree with your view on this matter.

However, to get back on topic, the Quran is consistent with the meaning of the words used. So if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence.

For example:

Imra'ata `Imraan
Imra'ata Nuh
Imra'ata Lut
Imra'ata Fir`aun

`Iysaa 'ubnu Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibni Maryam
`Iysaa 'ibna Maryam
... 'ibnay Adam (5:27)
... Nuhun 'ibnahu (11:42)
... Luqman li'ibnihi: ... ya bunayya (31:13)
... 'ibnaka (12:81, Yusuf's story)
... wa 'ib'nahaa (21:91)
The one Musa is talking to, said to his brother: 'ibna 'umma! (7:150) (hint: musa li 'akhihi haruna 7:142)
Harun to his brother: yaa 'bna 'umma (20:92-94)

Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan (66:12)
'ibnatayya (28:27)


Let me repeat: if you were to take one meaning for a single occurrence of a word, all the concordances of the word in the Quran must be in harmony with that single occurrence. For example, if you were to take the expression "Maryam 'ibnata `Imraan" as "Maryam descendant of `Imraan", then to make things in harmony:

for 28:27 it would be:
(The father, or, the ascendant/ancestor) said (to Musa): 'Indeed, I wish to wed you one of these, my two descendants, ...'

for 7:150 it would be:
he said (to his brother, or, to the descendant of another branch of his ancestor): 'Descendant of my ancestor-mother! Indeed, the people judged me as weak ...'

and then there are still a lot more verses to make in harmony with the great ancestor/descendant view...

True, chronology is the keyword. And then there is also another keyword: "continuity". Please don't pay attention to the verse numbers, but instead pay attention the actual syntax/adverbs/conjunctions used. 'Time adverb' Idh / اذ / when may connect the chronology of the events succeeding its occurrence. Please observe sura 110 for example. In 3:35, there is not even a conjunction "wa / و / and" before the "Idh", beginning the verse, which should give us a clue of the "chronology" and "continuity" between the verses. Everyone can find each occurence of Idh beginning a verse, and analyze for him/herself the continuity/chronology between that verse and the preceding verse.
(ed: try this link for concordance "Idh / اذ / when", look for only "idh" as first word: sura:verse:1 )

To make it fair, however, let's replace the end of verses with comma -- i.e., to remove the issue of the verse numbering -- to see if they are indeed logically connected (or not).

3:34-3:35  :  " ... offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower, when she said, a woman of Imran ..."

3:33-3:34  :  " ... , and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above the `alamin, offspring one of the other and God Hearing, Knower... "

Honestly, which one do you see as logically connected? Which sequence is in continuity?

I'm not saying that 3:33-34 is not connected with 3:35-, in fact, 3:35- describes just how the the line of nabiyyin is continued as "offspring one of the other". `Imraan himself is indeed not 'present' in the verses describing Maryam's birth. The question which should arise: What happened with the father of Maryam in the time of her birth? And why did Maryam was put under the care of Zakariyya?

Of course it is important and that practice is understandable, however it doesn't mean that the Qur'aan, precise on its wording, conforms to their practice.

I hope this would contribute to the topic discussed.

Not necessarily that using word substitution always carries with it the best meaning.

Example again from inheritance verses;

4:11 للذكر to the male مثل alike حظ fortune الأنثيين the two females? ‏

54:17 للذكر to the remembrance

Which one is best meaning to be consistent and in harmony or are both correct?

In addition, Qur?an came to set things straight, like the doctrine of trinity, at time of revelation and today?

4:171 يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

4:176 ? الله لكم أن تضلوا والله بكل شيء عليم

[David_K]

This is the life of the average joe:

The first 25 years of your life you go to school...
then you work from 9-5 like a donkey another 40 years to pay your loans and bills...  
then you can relax the last 5 years of your life in oldness...
This is what is called human ignorance...

I wrote something wrong in my last post. I actually meant the first 20 years, not 25 years. So let me correct that mistake.

This is the life of the average joe:

The first 20 years of your life you go to school...
then you work from 9-5 like a donkey another 40 years to pay your loans and bills... 
then you can relax the last 5 years of your life in oldness...
This is what is called human ignorance...

Reality bite, doesn't it?

[David_K]

Remember what Moses did?  The story of Moses and his stand against Pharaoh and his servants is best understood as a METAPHOR. It talks about a man who stood face to face with the unholy triangle and exposed their falsehoods. He made the servants of Pharaoh (the "sahara" - his henchmen, and supporters) see the illusion that they have been living under.

This unholy triangle is still alive and well today, and unless it is toppled, we will continue to be slaves for all eternity.

You know exactly of whom I speak.

I think that the story of moses also is literal. And by literal i do not mean that he had a magic stick and used magic to try to convince pharaoh and his people. He probably debated with them to show them the falseness of their beliefs. According to my understanding, he did not perform any miracles (which are against the laws of nature).

From my understanding, he told the truth and then the pharaoh told him that what he is telling is Magic.

This accusation of magic reminds me of the word conspiracy which is often misused in our time. Whenever somebody tells something which is not accepted by the majority, people tell that what this person says is only a conspiracy theory. Sometimes the conspiracies are just conspiracies, but often those who are telling the controversial stuff are telling the truth. However, since most people are programmed away from reality, it is hard for them to accept anything which the majority do not accept.
So according to my understandm, magic = conspiracy/lie/falsehood.

But are you saying that the story is completely metaphorical? hmm.  

I agree that the story of Moses is understood as Metaphor as well. Why? So that it can be universal and work for all times, or work until the system of Bankers, Clergy, and Politicians collapses and is replaced by something better.  Yes, i know of whom you speak.

Unfortunately more than 90% of the worlds population have fallen under the spell of this unholy triangle. But there is always hope as long as there exist opposition against the system.

[san]

Peace san,

Not necessarily that using word substitution always carries with it the best meaning.

Example again from inheritance verses;

4:11 للذكر to the male مثل alike حظ fortune الأنثيين the two females? ‏

54:17 للذكر to the remembrance

Which one is best meaning to be consistent and in harmony or are both correct?

4:11 لِلذَّكَرِ li-dhdhakari
54:17 لِلذِّكْرِ li-dhdhikri

Actually, they are different. (that's not fair! ) Let's not forget that Alqur'aan is also preserved through oral tradition--and that, of course, different vocalizations of a root produce different meaning, though their origin might be related conceptually.

my previous examples are of exact same vocalization, exact same words: ابْنَتَ 'ibnata and ابْنَتَيَّ 'ibnatayya (of course you know very well that يَّ- -yya is a pronoun).

In addition, Qur?an came to set things straight, like the doctrine of trinity, at time of revelation and today?

4:171 يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

4:176 ? الله لكم أن تضلوا والله بكل شيء عليم

Agreed. That's why we must observe the details while keeping our mind open.


Peace