Virgin Birth of Isa

[IronSky]

Peace to all,

Lobster, I somewhat agree with you, but do you believe that there are things that are divine, and if so wouldnt the truth be divine whereever we find it, as theres only one truth and we should always search for it and follow it, so would you agree that it is the truth that is divine, and if so is there anything in the Quran that you find as a lie or false or  not possibly divine, please give examples from Quran that you disagree with.

Kurt

[OPF]

So let me get this straight. "Aya", depending on the context of the verses has been used in the Book to mean either:

(1) Signs, or
(2) Verses


Am I correct? Nothing about miracles, right?

Well, that is the question at hand. To say "nothing about miracles" when we weren't around at the time and could not have observed is a stretch too far.

The acts of Jesus are just one of the many such acts. I am making a list of all such acts in the Book, but just to start off with a few:

(1) Moses and the parting of the Sea (Sea of Reeds or the Red Sea, whichever one you want to call it)
(2) Mary and the food that she got, which she claimed was from her Lord.
(3) Jesus and the table from "Heaven".
(4) Abraham and the Birds.

First off, I don't understand if this list is about whether these events are supernatural or whether these are about how special jesus was relative to the others. So I'll take it as the first, considering we just shouldn't be making a distinction between messengers.

(1) - There are perfectly rational explanations here. Moses could have gotten help from god in a very nice way: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060719-red-sea-parts.html - If a split like that could happen, why not? Maybe even an earthquake or something hit the region or some sort of geological effect that created a neat, temporary fracture along the path.

(2) - I don't really see how there is anything supernatural about that. The food can come from anywhere, maybe even a hole in the wall through which she was being a bit sneaky and getting food from people. A cryptic answer to a question - all food comes from god. What makes Mary's food any more special? There is no actual nformation in that verse that suggests anything other than Mary being clever with words here. It definitely sounds supernatural and I think Zakariya may have fallen for it rather well. I could be wrong, but the burden of proof is on you to show anything supernatural occured.

(3) - That, I have no idea on.

(4) - Again, that's a very odd one considering Abraham himself started off with raw rational thought.

Now I have read all the explanations in Dr. Shabbir's QXP. If you accept those explanations, then no need to reply to these queries. I already know those. I mean he emphasizes use of Tafseer which is just fine with me, but somewhere along the way, the understanding start getting forced. As an example, Adam. What meaning is attributed to Adam? Is it a name like Jesus, not to be translated or not? If not, why and what meaning is acceptable? All Mankind, when it come to comparison with Jesus, or Early Mankind, when it comes to 3:33-34 ("God has selected Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran over the worlds, a progeny each from the other, and God is Hearer, Knower.") True Guidance is only from the Lord, not from dictionaries or one's perception of reality. The fact of the matter is one cannot claim to have true knowledge. 17:36, right? Everything about Jesus, can you please tell me how one can verify that? The truth of the matter is one cannot, one had no knowledge of the "events" until He gave the knowledge thereof through the Book. The Keeper of all Knowledge is our Lord. He gave us the Book with knowledge.

All of humanity has been predicted to descend from this one man, now given the name Adam by researchers. Who has the status of "Adam"? The latest fossil found that all humanity can be traced to. So Adam, I would have to say must be a man. We already have a word for mankind in an-nas, so it's a bit off.

The fact of the matter is one cannot claim to have true knowledge. 17:36, right?

Nor can we claim something about the quran that will strip it of meaningfulness or any relation to the real world. Consider its purpose, to guide mankind. As for 17:36, I don't know how you came to that conclusion on this verse alone because that verse states that the mind and the senses will be questioned as to their best use (16:78) on this day.

Everything about Jesus, can you please tell me how one can verify that? The truth of the matter is one cannot, one had no knowledge of the "events" until He gave the knowledge thereof through the Book. The Keeper of all Knowledge is our Lord. He gave us the Book with knowledge.

I agree. The quran's revelation, exposition, explanation - clearly a continuous process. Take the verse 21:30, note the context and the simple challenge to a specific group of people. Somehow I doubt any Arab or anyone without microwave imaging equipment and telescopes could really have found those verses to be anything other than supernatural, or meaningless. Now we have a full meaning for this verse, and we know that it fits beautifully with reality (22:6).

Remember that huge list of explanations you had a page or two back? Do you realise that until Ibn Al-Haytham set the foundations for optics, physics and indeed, modern empirical science, some 400 years after the quran's completion, there was little known about the majority of those? Those also came to be revealed, in time. Sharp0001B.C. could not have made such a list and dismissed the quran's information at that time, simply because that information came from none but the quran. In fact, Sharp1500AD would have to wait a few hundred years for Darwin's evolution and Maxwell/Faraday's electrodynamics and Newton's gravity to even consider making such a list. So again, you are very quick to dismiss what is now pure tautology, but at one point in time, it was nothing but a miracle.

And what do we do? We start scrutinizing that knowledge for its authenticity. We start to seek its ratification with our limited observations. Why should the accept the Book if we don't find it truthful? "...Truly man is ungrateful/rejectful." Am I saying that we should follow the Book blindly? No, because the Book itself tells you what one can verify if one feels the need to affirm one's belief by stating, "See..." or "Do they not see..." Our Lord is Most Wise, He knows His creations better than anyone. He knows our psyche and our need to know everything. Please tell me any verse where it tells you to verify past events, other than to verify their results, their destruction, their ruins. Never the actual events themselves because fact of the matter is one can't verify them, one can only speculate or extrapolate... but then again why conjecture? God tells you the events Himself. He was there, we weren't.

I ask you why Allah asks the unbelievers of 700AD to verify the big bang. Refresh my memory, did they have any radio telescopes at the time? What about cumulonimbus cloud formation? Did the unbelievers cut open their pregnant women to look at the embryos inside and affirm the truth of the quran? And where does it tell you to verify past events if not 17:36 coupled with 22:62? There is a difference between verification and explanation. You are asking us to accept a supernatural explanation for these past events, because we cannot verify them - that is logically absurd. A verification of what happened there is impossible, but your explanation of it here and now can and shall be subjected to scrutiny. Why should we work out of the field of established truth and reality? Do you think that say, pythagoras' identity isn't "true knowledge"? Correct me if I'm wrong but from that statement you don't seem to understand how certain things can be claimed to be true knowledge and correctly so. Get this right - people observe the reality around them, and a certain mathematically minded subset of people also find that what they know in their heads (which has been programmed into all by the creator, no less) is a very good description of what they see. So is it wrong? No, because it's reverse defined. Sure, the "monads" could jump up, rearrange themselves and all of our science would be rendered as trash, but for all reasonable intents and purposes, these formalisms are simply a description of what's going on, in a different language with a very well defined grammar - and like all descriptive language, it's a good approximation to everything going on underneath. If the creator has decided to give us these mental tools, the five senses, and then tells us to observe, read and verify, why should we not?

Now this is what I truly don't understand. On the one hand, you say that we should neither extrapolate nor use anything other than what the Book actually tells us about it, but on the other hand for all that has happened in the past, we should use the yardstick of reality and not take at face value what the Book tells us. How does that work?

Peace

It's rather simple. I like to start off with established reality or truth, then we can move onto any such extrapolations. Everything that has happened in the future or past, likewise. And where is there taking face value? You have to note a few things, like the scale of certain things or that things may be true but far from the way we expected them. An unbeliever, or SharpTheSkeptic632ADwould read 21:30 and think it meant literally the sky and earth - they are well off the scale. et, 21:30 reads very true with the information we have now. And how else was that found but by examining reality?

[Tay]

Peace Sharp,

I know you're busy in discussion on this thread alone, so reply whenever you get to it...

Believe it or not, that does answer my questions about your standpoint. "What is amazing to you may not be amazing for someone else..." So very true... The reason behind my line of questioning was just to bring this aspect out to light. The Lord is Most Wise. All kinds of signs, both the natural and "supernatural", are here to address the psyche of different people. "Verily, it is easy for Him." I mean think about Abraham, even when he recognized God through His creations, he asked Him reassure his heart by showing him how He brings life from the dead. If you say all signs are between the Heavens and the Earth, then tell me the need for the Lord to mention and highlight specific signs, like Jesus and His Mother etc.

I'm not quite sure how to correctly answer this question - I mean, if a ship is considered a sign, then I don't see why Isa and his mom are not. Isa's deliverance obviously reached a ton of people. There's surely a sign in his teachings.

So, when you mention, "...the need for the Lord to mention and highlight specific signs...", I really can't pretend to know. It's the same, really, as asking why ants are mentioned yet scorpions are not.

About the use of the word "ayat"... I don't understand the criteria for attributing what meaning it carries. I mean there is no consistency. Somewhere it is taken to mean "sign", in other places it is taken to mean "miracle". I mean why? Like I said, what your yardstick is reality. If that is so, then logically, anything you cannot comprehend must and can not be acceptable to you... ever. That is the reason why a "miracle" would be redundant and useless in this day and age because of what people will say, "This is just trickery, sleight of hand... it is not real". Truly, the Lord is Most Wise.

I'm not sure why miracle would be associated with ayah. It seems to me to be tradional tanslational influence. "Sign" seems to fit in every instance. Perhaps the "sign" may be viewed as miraculous to some, but again it comes down to one's viewpoint.

Then their is the concept of the afterlife. Now before anyone types a long post for their understanding, I have read what explanation Br. Arnold gave to Br. amuslim and suffice to say that I am not over-awed by the understanding. I am basically constructing my thought processes about a few topics, which includes the Day of Judgment and the Afterlife. Just as an example, one question is how do you feel about meeting with your Lord? We know that all mankind will meet their Maker. How do you understand that will happen? Metaphorically? Here on Earth? How so? Just a simple 2-3 lines will do for now.

Whatever it will be will be unlike anything we know. And what we know is that the body decays and gets recycled into new life, ie, plants, animals, bacteria, etc. Besides that, I can only speculate. I do take a metaphorical approach to the ayat describing the afterlife. I don't think there will be real rivers of honey and stuff. But what it will actually be like, I'm clueless.

I have had a few personal experience where I felt "body-less" and felt a sublime yet much more real connection to something greater than anything this life has offered. So I imagine it would be some sort of sensory shift - like the lights turn out in this world and when they turn back on it will be something else entirely.

In any case, the most important thing I feel for myself is that moment when the end/beginning comes, I will be completely exposed for the person I was in this life.

Peace,
Tay

[Lobster]

Peace to all,

Lobster, I somewhat agree with you, but do you believe that there are things that are divine, and if so wouldnt the truth be divine whereever we find it, as theres only one truth and we should always search for it and follow it, so would you agree that it is the truth that is divine, and if so is there anything in the Quran that you find as a lie or false or  not possibly divine, please give examples from Quran that you disagree with.

Kurt

Peace Kurt,
I can't say I disagree with the Quran on anything, because I'm not really sure what it says!
I find the punishment of a hundred lashes rather odd and I don't think it is warranted or that it would be very effective.
The "dont eat pig meat" command is weird as well, because there are many other dangerous foods that we shouldn't eat but aren't mentioned. Idolfree1 suggested this was meant symbolically and you can go with that interpretation, I guess.
Those are two examples, but again I'm not sure I disagree because I'm not sure if the quran actually says those things.

I agree that the truth is what matters, wherever we find it. If we find it in the Quran, that's fine. It's not the quran we're following, it's the truth.
If something in the quran is true, then it is divine. But not the "god wrote that" kind of divine. More like "inspired by god (god being the 'ultimate reality')" kind of divine.
So the divinity of the quran is a conclusion. We read the quran, we examine it, and we decide whether what it says is true or not.
But here's the thing, most "quran aloners" here never concluded anything. It seems they always had the assumption that the quran is right. That's the problem. Because of that assumption, people either follow what they know is wrong just because the quran says it, or (the more sensible ones) don't really read the quran at all, but come to an understanding they think is right independently and then fit it into the quran.
This whole problem would be solved if people stopped believing in the quran's infallibility, and realize that the aim is the truth, not the quran.

[Peace]

What do YOU know to be true? A great little question I found in the book Spiritual Enlightenment the Damndest thing (by Jed Mckenna). Make sure you question the assumptions that are taken for granted in that question. I'm still working on it myself.
Peace

[Arnold Yasin]

The acts of Jesus are just one of the many such acts. I am making a list of all such acts in the Book, but just to start off with a few:

(1) Moses and the parting of the Sea (Sea of Reeds or the Red Sea, whichever one you want to call it)
(2) Mary and the food that she got, which she claimed was from her Lord.
(3) Jesus and the table from "Heaven".
(4) Abraham and the Birds.

Peace Sharp,

I have discussed almost ALL verses concerning miracles, I discuss the Arabic and context in detail. If you accept it or not is something different but I do ask you to first read the whole thing before asking questions that have been answered already almost a year ago.

1.  The splitting of the sea is a rare natural phenomena, but it is no miracle:

Colin Humpreys, a professor, has investigated what is called tidewinds. This when the tide has the same direction as a strong wind. This will push the water even further into one direction which will cause dry spots in lakes or even seas. In lake michigan this had occured several times, that one side were large area's had turned dry and on the other side where the tide and wind were going,the water had risen for more then 5 meters. It is like having a glass of water and blowing on the water, which will cause a rise of the water on one side and a lowering of the water on the other. C.Humpreys has investigated this for years at the red sea and found out this tidewind phenomena still occurs every so often, where a part of the sea turns dry, while on both sides there is still water. So the splitting of the sea still occurs today. The miracle with Moses then was the exact timing they were there when this tidewind occured. So the splitting is no miracle, the timing is. When the wind stops, all the water will rush back with tremendous force, which is the flood that took Pharoah and his people. See C.Humpreys book: The Miracles of Exodus.

26:63. So We inspired to Moses: ?idrib bi-asa-ka-l-bahra.? So it split into two, each side like a great mountain/walls/raised pieces of land.

Here again it has to do with the arabic meanings that are chosen. Darb means to hit, beat, move, march on, to move from one place to the other, to bring forth a parable, and it has more meanings. Asa has multiple meanings, and one of the meanings is people, tribe, community, conviction, willpower, believe, strengtht, something that supports; as asa refers to a state of unity/oneness.

Taud means also a raised piece of land next to meaning mountain. So the correct translation of this verse is:

26:63. So We inspired to Moses: ?And move to the sea with your people.? So it split into two, each side like a raised piece of land.

2. God is the source of everything as He is our Rabb, the Nourisher, and Rahman, the Source of everything we need. It seems Mary did not want to lie about who did it, and so refered to God as He is the Provider of all.

3. Maidatun means to furnish with provisions, Knowledge which is spiritual Food. The ?id? which is used, points out to a constant returning source of happiness and joy. So this cannot be a real table with food coming from the Heavens, as it refers to something that returns constantly. As the Quran is meant to create the Deen, the Perfect System of life, the Table of Food here refers to the Deen which will provide constantly to a constant joy.

4. The verse in itself doesn't say cut the birds, it says tame them, then spread them over 4 mountains (remind yourself it were several birds he tamed), and then he called them to him. In this simple example God tries to show Abraham how we are trained through Revelation to respond to His Call.

[Jack]

Peace Lobster,

I would like to respond but can you create a new thread instead or something? I don't wanna be distracting from the main topic of discussion...

[OPF]

See C.Humpreys book: The Miracles of Exodus.

Interesting:

The Real Story of the Exodus Colin Humphreys, a world-renowned Cambridge University scientist, reveals for the first time the concrete, scientific truth behind the Exodus miracles. The Burning Bush: Caused by a volcanic vent that opened up under the bush. Crossing the Red Sea: The water was pushed back by a very strong wind blowing all night. This is a known physical phenomenon called wind setdown. The details given in the Bible mean we can pinpoint where the Red Sea crossing occurred. Drowning Pharaoh's Army: When the very strong wind suddenly stopped blowing, the water rushed back in the form of a rapidly returning "bore" wave, sweeping Pharaoh's army into the sea. Mount Sinai: The real Mount Sinai is in present-day Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai Desert as is generally assumed.

[adjwi]

Peace all,

I would just like to bring these two ayats into this discussion.

021.091
YUSUFALI: And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.
PICKTHAL: And she who was chaste, therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.
SHAKIR: And she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and made her and her son a sign for the nations.
KHALIFA: As for the one who maintained her virginity, we blew into her from our spirit, and thus, we made her and her son a portent for the whole world.


066.012
YUSUFALI: And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).
PICKTHAL: And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient.
SHAKIR: And Marium, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and she accepted the truth of the words of her Lord and His books, and she was of, the obedient ones.
KHALIFA: Also Mary, the Amramite. She maintained her chastity, then we blew into her from our spirit. She believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures; she was obedient.

Question: what's those two ayats about?

I've read the viewpoints posted in the threads listed at the beginning of this discussion and marvel at the sight of opposite views coming from the reading of the same book. Firsthand, it makes no sense that a human be born without the male and female participation. If that were possible, who then would be considered the father, God? If not who's child would it be?

How did Mary become caught up in such a story? Wouldn't it stand to reason that of course Mary's child is human and as such would have a father? What the qur'an does though is correct the idea that God would have a son. But how could God have a child? Could such a child be the product of a virgin giving birth? How else could a story of a child of God come about? Could a virgin really have a child? Wouldn't that be beyond (not bending) the laws of nature?

The law of gravity pulls down humanity in a material, physical world. Creation, as we have discovered seems to have more non-stuff than ''real stuff''. We historically seem  restrained within this mind-set of the touch and visible. Truth however doesn't seem bound to such limits, truth seems to lie also beyond. In fact truth must of existed before the universe, before the material, before the light, before time, before the creation of the laws. ''BE!'' and so it was. To travel back to the creator could well be to travel back to the command. Back to the word. Khun faya khun! Isn't Jesus the word of Allah?

Does the design of prophecy need a spiritual shift away from the material? That mixture of matter and spirit, isn't that what humans are? Isn't it the rhuh that differentiates us from all other creation? Isn't that the invisible? Don't we need to direct ourselves, as humanity in the direction of the invisible? Won't that be the direction of our return? What is your judgement?

adjwi

[Arnold Yasin]

Peace,

Ruh means Wind, it stood for the Human Self as the human mind could go in any direction just as the wind blows in any direction. Ruh stood also for Aid/Support or Mercy as the wind brings rain and it was also used for Revelation in the Quran as Revelation is blown into Man as it was wind.

Shakir's translation is the best one as he understood the context in 66:12 where Ruh and the Scriptures are connected directly, and so the Ruh that Mary receives is the inspiration, revelation.