Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

[The Cat]

Muslims should check their own sacred book since plenty of verses underline that Jesus was indeed the son of Allah: 39.4 (-Chr.59th-); 46.9 (-Chr.66th-); 21.91 (-Chr.73th-); 2.116-117 (-Chr.87th-); 66.12 (-Chr.107th-). Verses 81.19-20 (-Chr.7th-) say that Jesus always existed (laqawluss, quwwatin AAinda) and that he is one with God (MutaAAin 81.21). In 3.59 (-Chr.89th-) again Jesus wasn't begotten (inna mathala AAinda) as he always existed, emphasized in 6.101 (-Chr.55th-) (BadeeAAu). In 57.27 (-Chr.94th-), Jesus is even proclaimed the Creator of the Universe!

Some verses related to the topic...

2:116 And they say: Allah hath taken unto Himself a son. Be He glorified! Nay, but whatsoever is in the heavens
and the earth is His. All are subservient unto Him.

2:117 The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

3:50 And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was
forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (See 18.50; 2.30, 2.34).

4:171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth.
The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a
spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease!.....

5:110 When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee
with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture.....

5:120 Unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is therein, and He is Able to do all things.

6:101 The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort,
when He created all things and is Aware of all things ?

9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary...

19:35 It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

39:4 If Allah had willed to choose a son, He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created....

66:12 And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit....

Did Allah had a son? by Abdul Kasem
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem60530p8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem60530p9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Angel (Gabriel) implanted the seed (Ruh) of Allah inside the womb of Mary.

It might seem incredible but let us read ibn Kathir‘s interpretation of verse 66:12.

(And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity (private part).) meaning, who protected and purified her honor, by being chaste and free of immorality,
[فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا]

(And We breathed into it (private part) through Our Ruh,) meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him to blow into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb through her private part; this is how `Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here,
[فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَـتِ رَبَّهَا وَكُتُبِهِ]

(And We breathed into it through Our Ruh, and she testified to the truth of her Lords Kalimat, and His Kutub,) meaning His decree and His legislation.
[وَكَانَتْ مِنَ الْقَـنِتِينَ]

Even ibn Kathir admits that Jesus carried Allah’s seed (sperm or Ruh?). So why Islam must reject the Christians’ assertion that Jesus was, after all, the son of Allah (or God)? Seems the Christians are correct in asserting Jesus is the son of Allah.

If Allah isn't the father of Jesus (Isa) who then is... the father?

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Muslims should check their own sacred book since plenty of verses underline that Jesus was indeed the son of Allah: 39.4 (-Chr.59th-); 46.9 (-Chr.66th-); 21.91 (-Chr.73th-); 2.116-117 (-Chr.87th-); 66.12 (-Chr.107th-). Verses 81.19-20 (-Chr.7th-) say that Jesus always existed (laqawluss, quwwatin AAinda) and that he is one with God (MutaAAin 81.21). In 3.59 (-Chr.89th-) again Jesus wasn't begotten (inna mathala AAinda) as he always existed, emphasized in 6.101 (-Chr.55th-) (BadeeAAu). In 57.27 (-Chr.94th-), Jesus is even proclaimed the Creator of the Universe!

Some verses related to the topic...

2:116 And they say: Allah hath taken unto Himself a son. Be He glorified! Nay, but whatsoever is in the heavens
and the earth is His. All are subservient unto Him.

2:117 The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

3:50 And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was
forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (See 18.50; 2.30, 2.34).

4:171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth.
The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a
spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease!.....

5:110 When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee
with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture.....

5:120 Unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is therein, and He is Able to do all things.

6:101 The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort,
when He created all things and is Aware of all things ?

9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary...

19:35 It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

39:4 If Allah had willed to choose a son, He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created....

66:12 And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit....

Did Allah had a son? by Abdul Kasem
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem60530p8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem60530p9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Angel (Gabriel) implanted the seed (Ruh) of Allah inside the womb of Mary.

It might seem incredible but let us read ibn Kathir‘s interpretation of verse 66:12.

(And Maryam, the daughter of `Imran who guarded her chastity (private part).) meaning, who protected and purified her honor, by being chaste and free of immorality,
[فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا]

(And We breathed into it (private part) through Our Ruh,) meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him to blow into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb through her private part; this is how `Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here,
[فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَـتِ رَبَّهَا وَكُتُبِهِ]

(And We breathed into it through Our Ruh, and she testified to the truth of her Lords Kalimat, and His Kutub,) meaning His decree and His legislation.
[وَكَانَتْ مِنَ الْقَـنِتِينَ]

Even ibn Kathir admits that Jesus carried Allah’s seed (sperm or Ruh?). So why Islam must reject the Christians’ assertion that Jesus was, after all, the son of Allah (or God)? Seems the Christians are correct in asserting Jesus is the son of Allah.

If Allah isn't the father of Jesus (Isa) who then is... the father?

Thanks very much for opening an interesting thread. I was almost getting bored here. Yes, we have checked the verses of Quran and no where does Quran or Allah says that Jesus was the son of Allah. There is also no statement from Allah saying, "I am the father of Jesus" just as there is no verse from Jesus saying, "Allah is my father, who made my mother conceive me" or "I am the son of Allah and Mary."

I wish to clarify the following:

39:4 starts with the word If . It does not confirm that Allah had taken a son or begotten a son through a woman.

46:9 has nothing to do with Jesus or a son.

2:116 refers to those who say that Allah has a son. The THEY refers to the Christians, who say that. And it gets denied.

81:19-20 is talking about Gabriel, not Jesus. It does not say that Jesus always existed. There is no Jesus in those verses.

81:21 is also talking about Gabriel. It is a continuation of 81-19-20.

3:59 does not say that Jesus always existed. It just says that he was created by saying 'be and there he was' (in his mother's womb).

6:101 says that how can Allah have a son when Allah has no mate. That is a denial and rejection of the Christian claim that Allah has a son.

Thanks very much for the link to Abul Kasem's articles and I can safely say that he is an ignorant fool. My apologies for saying this but the man is clueless and incompetent.

I would now like to comment on the so-called breathing in or blowing in.
The words beget, begat or begot and begotten are archaic. No one uses them now in everyday conversation.

You may find this interesting and informative. If we go through the bronze age versions of the Bible, we would find such verses:

Genesis 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

It means that God breathed in life or made man come alive or gave life to man. There were no through holes in the nostrils of the nose made of clay and God, being a spirit, did not have a mouth to blow.

We can see Jesus doing a similar action in John 20:22 " And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit." Jesus did not go and breathed in their noses or mouths. It was an act of blowing air from his mouth on to them. So, they received his hot air from his lungs. A symbolic act. This was very common of sages and prophets to recite something and blow on people. The Rabbis, the priests and the Mullahs still do that.

So, "We breathed in" or "We blew in" simply means, "We gave life to". There is no physical breathing of seed, etc into anything.

There are quite a few Quranic expressions, which we call Rare Quranic Expressions and these are not used in modern Arabic or daily life. For example "Nafakhna" or "Anfukhu" or "Nufikha" fall under rare Quranic expression.

For example, If you try to translate فَنَفَخْنَا (fanafakhna), using Google Translate, see what happens? it would be hilarious and Google Translate would not even be able to translate it. If you do that, it will give you: Venfajna.

Thus in 66:12, the key word is "فِيهِ ", which means "in it" and the it is the tiny fetus of Jesus, which received life.

The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.

Hope this helped.

[The Cat]

Hi Ghalib... thanks for answering. I took the time and care to reply to my best...

6:101 says that how can Allah have a son when Allah has no mate.
That is a denial and rejection of the Christian claim that Allah has a son.

Isn't this verse limiting Allah's capacity? Does God need a mate to create a human, like Adam for example? Sounds strange to me.
Just wondering: How did Allah create EVE? When not specified I guess one must rely on Genesis, don't you think? A bone? Humm!!

39:4 starts with the word If . It does not confirm that Allah had taken a son or begotten a son through a woman.

39:4 If Allah had willed to choose a son (Waladāan), He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created....

A lot of misunderstanding arose from the Arabic word used for son, ie. WALID... which means a biological fatherhood in the flesh.
Usually thus the Arabic Bibles do translate 'son' with the Arabic 'Ibn' (of the belonging), much more in line with the conceptual idea.

3:59 does not say that Jesus always existed. It just says that he was created by saying 'be and there he was' (in his mother's womb).

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (See 18.50; 2.30, 2.34).

'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin Thumma Qāla Lahu Kun Fayakūnu

There seems to be TWO similitudes involved:
1) 'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi (the likeness of Isa WITH Allah, ie. His spirited words)
2) Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin (the likeness of Jesus AND Adam from dust)

When Allah says 'BE' then what's created is of divine origin: the World, Adam & Isa. Not even so for the angels (light) or jinns (fire).

None of whom were biologically created as per 86.5-7:
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid (Mā'in Dāfiqin)
--That issued from between the loins and ribs (Aş-Şulbi Wa At-Tarā'ibi).

Still, the likeness of Jesus is first of all that of Allah (the likeness of Jesus with Allah is of that).
Yet that's only about the human part of Jesus' divine creation, his body, but 4.171 implies more:

4.171: The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah,
and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.

Here Muslims like to state that Jesus is -a- word from God, not -the- word, this word being 'BE'.
But this is challenged since the verse implicitly states that His word (Kalimatuhu) existed from
all time, thus 'conveyed unto Mary', AND a 'spirit' (Rūĥun) from Him. Isa being His Ruhullah!

The Koran emphasizes time again that Isa is born as the word and spirit of Allah:
As the spirited word of Allah, what Jesus -said and utter- must be held... divine !

Let us ponder over this from John Gilchrist:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us begin with the first as it is written in the verse, namely kalimatuhuu - "His Word". The construction makes it plain that Jesus is, in some unique way, God's own Word. The title; appears in two other places in the Qur'an in much the same context. In Surah 3.39 an angel announces to Zachariah that his son John (Yahya) will witness to a kalimatim-minallaah, "a Word from God", and in Surah 3.45 the angels, in announcing the conception of Jesus to Mary, speak of him as a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from Him"....

In Surah 4.171 Jesus is called God's Word, not just a Word from God as in the two passages we quoted from the third Surah. ''Christ is called 'His Word', that is, 'God's Word'. The Arabic shows that it means 'The Word of God', not merely 'a Word of God'. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God's mind and will''. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15).....

The Qur'an says no more of Adam than that "he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration" (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, "from his Lord", but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the "Word of God"..... The title Son of God at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer - a son is subject to his father - but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur'an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God....

As a person, a human being, Jesus was born in the likeness of Adam (which makes him a viceroy on earth by extension of 2.30).
BUT, whenever Jesus speaks... he becomes the embodiment of Allah's Spirit and Word, contrary to Adam and any other one...
Muhammad is commanded to accept: 3:60 (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.

81:19-20 is talking about Gabriel, not Jesus. It does not say that Jesus always existed.
There is no Jesus in those verses. 81:21 is also talking about Gabriel. It is a continuation of 81-19-20.

81.19-21: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger, Mighty, established
in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy;

81.19: Certainly His Word is an honored messenger (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

The meaning of 'Innahu laqawlun' is underlined in 86.13:
86.13: Lo! this (Qur´an) is a conclusive word ('Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

The lying pen of the scribes is, here again, at works for 'Qur'an' isn't mentioned in Arabic.
Thus the conclusive word of Allah is described in the above verses: the heaven and earth.
These are the 'Word' of God and Jesus is thus recognized as their universal embodiment !

Here, Gabriel is NOT implied at all but His Word, ie. the holy message sent by the Heaven & Earth,
as the embodiment of God's Word and Spirit, Jesus is the 'trustworthy' one to be soulfully obeyed.
Not only is he a viceroy made in the likeness of Adam, but a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

3.50: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was
forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

5.110: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother;
how I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit. (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (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).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Ruhullah - Jesus the Spirit of God.

In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from him". Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, "a Spirit from him". On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit...

In this case, however, we do find some evidence in the Qur'an that helps us to identify the meaning of this title. Elsewhere in the Qur'an we read of the "Holy Spirit" (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103) and it is presumed that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. Whoever it is, it is generally agreed that the Holy Spirit is greater than man and comes from heaven and is purely a spirit.

Jesus, however, is now called "a Spirit from him" (ruhun minhu) from which he has received the title in Islamic traditions, "Spirit of God". Whereas David is called Khalifatullah ("Vicegerent of God") and Abraham Khalilullah ("Friend of God") as we have already seen, so now we find that the express title for Jesus in Islam is Ruhullah ("Spirit of God"). Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (''O Spirit of Allah").

No doubt here: Isa is the Ruhullah, the spoken words of God!

in 66:12, the key word is "فِيهِ ", which means "in it" and the it is the tiny fetus of Jesus, which received life.

Let us read again 66.12:
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.

Therein (or in it) most obviously refers to the chaste body of Mary, meaning NO fetus at all at this point. For if there would have been
a fetus already... she couldn't be stated chaste. The fetus itself must then have originated by the Spirit for Mary's body to be chaste.

The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.

Hope this helped.

Nobody in the sense of a somebody, alright, but I hope we can agree that God's spirit and word aren't exactly 'nothing'!

Once again, I shall underline that the Koranic wording for 'son' (ie. walid) is the main huge problem.
No Christian would understand either that Jesus is such the biological son of a flesh and blood God.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Bringing people over to a more "noble" or "non radicalized" version or interpretation of Mein Kampf might actually be a good idea as well .

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Hi Ghalib... thanks for answering. I took the time and care to reply to my best...

6:101 says that how can Allah have a son when Allah has no mate.
That is a denial and rejection of the Christian claim that Allah has a son.

Isn't this verse limiting Allah's capacity? Does God need a mate to create a human, like Adam for example?

Are you honestly going to actually attempt this?? Are you honestly this naive?? It can't be. You're even worse than the straight forward Islam detractors such as myself because you have an underlying hidden agenda, whereas the clear detractors don't. And all for naught, except for the sacrifice of your integrity.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Bringing people over to a more "noble" or "non radicalized" version or interpretation of Mein Kampf might actually be a good idea as well .

You cracked me up. Don't you think that the stone-age to the bronze age Bible is the Mein Kampf of the God of that Bible, MbL?
Please take a good look at his struggle.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Spoiler! :

Hi Ghalib... thanks for answering. I took the time and care to reply to my best...

6:101 says that how can Allah have a son when Allah has no mate.
That is a denial and rejection of the Christian claim that Allah has a son.

Isn't this verse limiting Allah's capacity? Does God need a mate to create a human, like Adam for example? Sounds strange to me.
Just wondering: How did Allah create EVE? When not specified I guess one must rely on Genesis, don't you think? A bone? Humm!!

39:4 starts with the word If . It does not confirm that Allah had taken a son or begotten a son through a woman.

39:4 If Allah had willed to choose a son (Waladāan), He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created....

A lot of misunderstanding arose from the Arabic word used for son, ie. WALID... which means a biological fatherhood in the flesh.
Usually thus the Arabic Bibles do translate 'son' with the Arabic 'Ibn' (of the belonging), much more in line with the conceptual idea.

3:59 does not say that Jesus always existed. It just says that he was created by saying 'be and there he was' (in his mother's womb).

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (See 18.50; 2.30, 2.34).

'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin Thumma Qāla Lahu Kun Fayakūnu

There seems to be TWO similitudes involved:
1) 'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi (the likeness of Isa WITH Allah, ie. His spirited words)
2) Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin (the likeness of Jesus AND Adam from dust)

When Allah says 'BE' then what's created is of divine origin: the World, Adam & Isa. Not even so for the angels (light) or jinns (fire).

None of whom were biologically created as per 86.5-7:
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid (Mā'in Dāfiqin)
--That issued from between the loins and ribs (Aş-Şulbi Wa At-Tarā'ibi).

Still, the likeness of Jesus is first of all that of Allah (the likeness of Jesus with Allah is of that).
Yet that's only about the human part of Jesus' divine creation, his body, but 4.171 implies more:

4.171: The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah,
and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.

Here Muslims like to state that Jesus is -a- word from God, not -the- word, this word being 'BE'.
But this is challenged since the verse implicitly states that His word (Kalimatuhu) existed from
all time, thus 'conveyed unto Mary', AND a 'spirit' (Rūĥun) from Him. Isa being His Ruhullah!

The Koran emphasizes time again that Isa is born as the word and spirit of Allah:
As the spirited word of Allah, what Jesus -said and utter- must be held... divine !

Let us ponder over this from John Gilchrist:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us begin with the first as it is written in the verse, namely kalimatuhuu - "His Word". The construction makes it plain that Jesus is, in some unique way, God's own Word. The title; appears in two other places in the Qur'an in much the same context. In Surah 3.39 an angel announces to Zachariah that his son John (Yahya) will witness to a kalimatim-minallaah, "a Word from God", and in Surah 3.45 the angels, in announcing the conception of Jesus to Mary, speak of him as a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from Him"....

In Surah 4.171 Jesus is called God's Word, not just a Word from God as in the two passages we quoted from the third Surah. ''Christ is called 'His Word', that is, 'God's Word'. The Arabic shows that it means 'The Word of God', not merely 'a Word of God'. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God's mind and will''. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15).....

The Qur'an says no more of Adam than that "he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration" (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, "from his Lord", but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the "Word of God"..... The title Son of God at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer - a son is subject to his father - but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur'an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God....

As a person, a human being, Jesus was born in the likeness of Adam (which makes him a viceroy on earth by extension of 2.30).
BUT, whenever Jesus speaks... he becomes the embodiment of Allah's Spirit and Word, contrary to Adam and any other one...
Muhammad is commanded to accept: 3:60 (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.

81:19-20 is talking about Gabriel, not Jesus. It does not say that Jesus always existed.
There is no Jesus in those verses. 81:21 is also talking about Gabriel. It is a continuation of 81-19-20.

81.19-21: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger, Mighty, established
in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy;

81.19: Certainly His Word is an honored messenger (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

The meaning of 'Innahu laqawlun' is underlined in 86.13:
86.13: Lo! this (Qur´an) is a conclusive word ('Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

The lying pen of the scribes is, here again, at works for 'Qur'an' isn't mentioned in Arabic.
Thus the conclusive word of Allah is described in the above verses: the heaven and earth.
These are the 'Word' of God and Jesus is thus recognized as their universal embodiment !

Here, Gabriel is NOT implied at all but His Word, ie. the holy message sent by the Heaven & Earth,
as the embodiment of God's Word and Spirit, Jesus is the 'trustworthy' one to be soulfully obeyed.
Not only is he a viceroy made in the likeness of Adam, but a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

3.50: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was
forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

5.110: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother;
how I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit. (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (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).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Ruhullah - Jesus the Spirit of God.

In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from him". Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, "a Spirit from him". On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit...

In this case, however, we do find some evidence in the Qur'an that helps us to identify the meaning of this title. Elsewhere in the Qur'an we read of the "Holy Spirit" (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103) and it is presumed that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. Whoever it is, it is generally agreed that the Holy Spirit is greater than man and comes from heaven and is purely a spirit.

Jesus, however, is now called "a Spirit from him" (ruhun minhu) from which he has received the title in Islamic traditions, "Spirit of God". Whereas David is called Khalifatullah ("Vicegerent of God") and Abraham Khalilullah ("Friend of God") as we have already seen, so now we find that the express title for Jesus in Islam is Ruhullah ("Spirit of God"). Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (''O Spirit of Allah").

No doubt here: Isa is the Ruhullah, the spoken words of God!

in 66:12, the key word is "فِيهِ ", which means "in it" and the it is the tiny fetus of Jesus, which received life.

Let us read again 66.12:
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.

Therein (or in it) most obviously refers to the chaste body of Mary, meaning NO fetus at all at this point. For if there would have been
a fetus already... she couldn't be stated chaste. The fetus itself must then have originated by the Spirit for Mary's body to be chaste.

The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.

Hope this helped.

Nobody in the sense of a somebody, alright, but I hope we can agree that God's spirit and word aren't exactly 'nothing'!

Once again, I shall underline that the Koranic wording for 'son' (ie. walid) is the main huge problem.
No Christian would understand either that Jesus is such the biological son of a flesh and blood God.

Thanks very much for your response, Cat. Will write, when I have more time. Such topics cannot be discussed in a jiffy.

[Cassie]

Bringing people over to a more "noble" or "non radicalized" version or interpretation of Mein Kampf might actually be a good idea as well .

You cracked me up. Don't you think that the stone-age to the bronze age Bible is the Mein Kampf of the God of that Bible, MbL?
Please take a good look at his struggle.

Is the Quran any better than the stone aged Bible? No. It's far worse.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Bringing people over to a more "noble" or "non radicalized" version or interpretation of Mein Kampf might actually be a good idea as well .

You cracked me up. Don't you think that the stone-age to the bronze age Bible is the Mein Kampf of the God of that Bible, MbL?
Please take a good look at his struggle.

Is the Quran any better than the stone aged Bible? No. It's far worse.

The stone age to bronze age Bible is horrible and it is the Mein Kampf of that Tribal God, who planned and supervised all the killings. I have read it. It is extremely inferior to Quran. Please read the barbaric part in it and let me know.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Hi Ghalib... thanks for answering. I took the time and care to reply to my best...

Yes, I noticed that and I appreciate it, Cat.

Isn't this verse limiting Allah's capacity? Does God need a mate to create a human, like Adam for example? Sounds strange to me.

Just wondering: How did Allah create EVE? When not specified I guess one must rely on Genesis, don't you think? A bone? Humm!!

No, 6:101 is not doing that. The verse is pointing out that one needs a mate to produce a son like the man does. So, the concept of son is applicable to man. Allah is not a man that Allah should have a son.

Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, where we see that God had already created man and created them male and female. So, I believe that Adam was created first, followed by the creation of Eve, not really from a rib though.

39:4 If Allah had willed to choose a son (Waladāan), He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created....

A lot of misunderstanding arose from the Arabic word used for son, ie. WALID... which means a biological fatherhood in the flesh.
Usually thus the Arabic Bibles do translate 'son' with the Arabic 'Ibn' (of the belonging), much more in line with the conceptual idea.

You are right about Ibn in the Arabic Bible because it has been translated on the basis of 'son' of God. Hence, it uses the word Ibn because they believe that Jesus is s/o God.

But the deeper meaning of 39:4 is that IF Allah had really wanted a son, then Allah would have to choose only from what Allah had created. That cannot be possible, hence the word "Subhanahu" (Glory to Him) is stressed.

Also, Allah is the Most High and far above the creation. In the final part of the verses, "Huwal wahid-ul-Qahhar" (the Mighty One) is maintained.

3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (See 18.50; 2.30, 2.34).

'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin Thumma Qāla Lahu Kun Fayakūnu

There seems to be TWO similitudes involved:
1) 'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi (the likeness of Isa WITH Allah, ie. His spirited words)
2) Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin (the likeness of Jesus AND Adam from dust)

I would like to stop here and try to explain 3:59, which is mostly discussed here with the help of a Translation in English. What I am going to write is very important and you might not have heard this before, so please concentrate on what I am about to explain. I am sure you will appreciate it. There are so many translations and I will not choose any particular translation.

When we read the Arabic verses, we do not even have the English translations of the verses in our minds.

Let us look at the transliteration of the verse, which you provided:

"'Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin Thumma Qāla Lahu Kun Fayakūn"

When we read and understand the above verse, this is how we register in mind. One has to keep in mind the prose of Quran.

Please allow me to re-write above only for the sake of explanation and making people understand and hope no one would construe it as distorting the verse.

"Inna Mathala `Īsá `Inda Allāhi Kamathali 'Ādama Khalaqahu Min Turābin Thumma Qāla Lahu Kun Fayakūn"

I will move "Inda Allāhi" from above and place it after 'Ādama and you will see how easy it is to understand.

"'Inna Mathala `Īsá (...) Kamathali 'Ādama (`Inda Allāhi ). Khalaqahu Min Turābin Thumma Qāla Lahu Kun Fayakūn" and now let us see how clear it is:

Jesus' case or example is like that of Adam, for Allah. Created him of dust. And said 'Be!'. When Allah said 'Be', there was Adam, who came to life and when Allah said 'Be', Jesus was also created and came to life. 'Be' is Allah's command, similar to "Let there be........ and there it was".

When Allah says 'BE' then what's created is of divine origin: the World, Adam & Isa. Not even so for the angels (light) or jinns (fire).

Allah also said 'Be' for angels and everything at some point in time. Right?

None of whom were biologically created as per 86.5-7:
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid (Mā'in Dāfiqin)
--That issued from between the loins and ribs (Aş-Şulbi Wa At-Tarā'ibi).

That is for all humans after the creation of Adam and Eve, a process ordained and established.

Still, the likeness of Jesus is first of all that of Allah (the likeness of Jesus with Allah is of that).

I have already clarified above that there is no likeness between Allah and Adam and there is also no likeness between Allah and Jesus. I hope it is clear from the way, I moved "`Inda Allāhi " away for the sake of clarification.

I will stop here and we shall continue later and ponder over the rest of your challenging post. Thanks.

Spoiler! :

Yet that's only about the human part of Jesus' divine creation, his body, but 4.171 implies more:

4.171: The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah,
and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.

Here Muslims like to state that Jesus is -a- word from God, not -the- word, this word being 'BE'.
But this is challenged since the verse implicitly states that His word (Kalimatuhu) existed from
all time, thus 'conveyed unto Mary', AND a 'spirit' (Rūĥun) from Him. Isa being His Ruhullah!

The Koran emphasizes time again that Isa is born as the word and spirit of Allah:
As the spirited word of Allah, what Jesus -said and utter- must be held... divine !

Let us ponder over this from John Gilchrist:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us begin with the first as it is written in the verse, namely kalimatuhuu - "His Word". The construction makes it plain that Jesus is, in some unique way, God's own Word. The title; appears in two other places in the Qur'an in much the same context. In Surah 3.39 an angel announces to Zachariah that his son John (Yahya) will witness to a kalimatim-minallaah, "a Word from God", and in Surah 3.45 the angels, in announcing the conception of Jesus to Mary, speak of him as a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from Him"....

In Surah 4.171 Jesus is called God's Word, not just a Word from God as in the two passages we quoted from the third Surah. ''Christ is called 'His Word', that is, 'God's Word'. The Arabic shows that it means 'The Word of God', not merely 'a Word of God'. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God's mind and will''. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15).....

The Qur'an says no more of Adam than that "he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration" (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, "from his Lord", but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the "Word of God"..... The title Son of God at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer - a son is subject to his father - but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur'an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God....

As a person, a human being, Jesus was born in the likeness of Adam (which makes him a viceroy on earth by extension of 2.30).
BUT, whenever Jesus speaks... he becomes the embodiment of Allah's Spirit and Word, contrary to Adam and any other one...
Muhammad is commanded to accept: 3:60 (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.

81:19-20 is talking about Gabriel, not Jesus. It does not say that Jesus always existed.
There is no Jesus in those verses. 81:21 is also talking about Gabriel. It is a continuation of 81-19-20.

81.19-21: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger, Mighty, established
in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy;

81.19: Certainly His Word is an honored messenger (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

The meaning of 'Innahu laqawlun' is underlined in 86.13:
86.13: Lo! this (Qur´an) is a conclusive word ('Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

The lying pen of the scribes is, here again, at works for 'Qur'an' isn't mentioned in Arabic.
Thus the conclusive word of Allah is described in the above verses: the heaven and earth.
These are the 'Word' of God and Jesus is thus recognized as their universal embodiment !

Here, Gabriel is NOT implied at all but His Word, ie. the holy message sent by the Heaven & Earth,
as the embodiment of God's Word and Spirit, Jesus is the 'trustworthy' one to be soulfully obeyed.
Not only is he a viceroy made in the likeness of Adam, but a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

3.50: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was
forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

5.110: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother;
how I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit. (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (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).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Ruhullah - Jesus the Spirit of God.

In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from him". Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, "a Spirit from him". On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit...

In this case, however, we do find some evidence in the Qur'an that helps us to identify the meaning of this title. Elsewhere in the Qur'an we read of the "Holy Spirit" (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103) and it is presumed that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. Whoever it is, it is generally agreed that the Holy Spirit is greater than man and comes from heaven and is purely a spirit.

Jesus, however, is now called "a Spirit from him" (ruhun minhu) from which he has received the title in Islamic traditions, "Spirit of God". Whereas David is called Khalifatullah ("Vicegerent of God") and Abraham Khalilullah ("Friend of God") as we have already seen, so now we find that the express title for Jesus in Islam is Ruhullah ("Spirit of God"). Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (''O Spirit of Allah").

No doubt here: Isa is the Ruhullah, the spoken words of God!

in 66:12, the key word is "فِيهِ ", which means "in it" and the it is the tiny fetus of Jesus, which received life.

Let us read again 66.12:
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.

Therein (or in it) most obviously refers to the chaste body of Mary, meaning NO fetus at all at this point. For if there would have been
a fetus already... she couldn't be stated chaste. The fetus itself must then have originated by the Spirit for Mary's body to be chaste.

The answer: Nobody was the father of Jesus.

Hope this helped.

Nobody in the sense of a somebody, alright, but I hope we can agree that God's spirit and word aren't exactly 'nothing'!

Once again, I shall underline that the Koranic wording for 'son' (ie. walid) is the main huge problem.
No Christian would understand either that Jesus is such the biological son of a flesh and blood God.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Continued:

Still, the likeness of Jesus is first of all that of Allah (the likeness of Jesus with Allah is of that).

We have seen already that 3:59 shows no likeness between Allah and Jesus. We have been told that Jesus was a man just like Adam, and just like Adam, he was created without a father. The verse also shows that Jesus was not born divine, since Adam was also not divine.

Yet that's only about the human part of Jesus' divine creation, his body, but 4.171 implies more:

4.171: The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah,
and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.

Here Muslims like to state that Jesus is -a- word from God, not -the- word, this word being 'BE'.
But this is challenged since the verse implicitly states that His word (Kalimatuhu) existed from
all time, thus 'conveyed unto Mary', AND a 'spirit' (Rūĥun) from Him. Isa being His Ruhullah!

The Koran emphasizes time again that Isa is born as the word and spirit of Allah:
As the spirited word of Allah, what Jesus -said and utter- must be held... divine !

4:171 should be read in full, in order to get the exact message. A simple translation would be:

People of the Book! Do not cross the line in your religion and do not speak anything against Allah except the truth.
Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was Allah’s messenger and fulfillment of a word, He had conveyed to Mary and a soul from Him. So believe in Allah and his messengers. Do not say, “Three”! Desist! It would be better for you. Indeed Allah is the only One God. He is too high above in glory to have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and Allah is enough as a Guardian.

It brings us back to the same point that God does not have a son and does not need one. Allah also refers to Jesus as the son of Mary. Allah has never said, "Jesus is my son." in Quran. The word was a command and Allah gave life or soul to Jesus. Thus the promise made to Maryam earlier that she would have a child, was fulfilled.

Thus Quran gives zero divinity to Jesus and calls him a servant of Allah:

19:30 'He said: "I am a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet,"

Surah 112 makes it absolutely clear by saying Allah is the one, "who has not begotten, and has not been begotten,"

Spoiler! :

Let us ponder over this from John Gilchrist:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us begin with the first as it is written in the verse, namely kalimatuhuu - "His Word". The construction makes it plain that Jesus is, in some unique way, God's own Word. The title; appears in two other places in the Qur'an in much the same context. In Surah 3.39 an angel announces to Zachariah that his son John (Yahya) will witness to a kalimatim-minallaah, "a Word from God", and in Surah 3.45 the angels, in announcing the conception of Jesus to Mary, speak of him as a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from Him"....

In Surah 4.171 Jesus is called God's Word, not just a Word from God as in the two passages we quoted from the third Surah. ''Christ is called 'His Word', that is, 'God's Word'. The Arabic shows that it means 'The Word of God', not merely 'a Word of God'. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God's mind and will''. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15).....

The Qur'an says no more of Adam than that "he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration" (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, "from his Lord", but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the "Word of God"..... The title Son of God at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer - a son is subject to his father - but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur'an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God....

Gilchrist is trying to find a son for God in Quran. I will not comment as it would turn out to be a lecture on Arabic. I have only one comment and that is: We do not recognize the Christian term Word of God. It is not there in Quran. Word of God reached many prophets. That would not mean Jesus reached the prophets.

As a person, a human being, Jesus was born in the likeness of Adam (which makes him a viceroy on earth by extension of 2.30).

BUT, whenever Jesus speaks... he becomes the embodiment of Allah's Spirit and Word, contrary to Adam and any other one...
Muhammad is commanded to accept: 3:60 (This is) the truth from thy Lord (O Muhammad), so be not thou of those who waver.

No. Jesus and all prophets spoke only the words that Allah put in their mouths.

81.19-21: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger, Mighty, established
in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy;

81.19: Certainly His Word is an honored messenger (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

The meaning of 'Innahu laqawlun' is underlined in 86.13:
86.13: Lo! this (Qur´an) is a conclusive word ('Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

The lying pen of the scribes is, here again, at works for 'Qur'an' isn't mentioned in Arabic.
Thus the conclusive word of Allah is described in the above verses: the heaven and earth.
These are the 'Word' of God and Jesus is thus recognized as their universal embodiment !

Here, Gabriel is NOT implied at all but His Word, ie. the holy message sent by the Heaven & Earth,
as the embodiment of God's Word and Spirit, Jesus is the 'trustworthy' one to be soulfully obeyed.
Not only is he a viceroy made in the likeness of Adam, but a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

Innahu refers to Quran in the verse. The translators added Quran in brackets to make the reader understand that. So, there is really no lying pen.

You can also see the same in the translation of 81:19 and if you continue reading, you will see in 81:23 that Muhammad saw Gabriel, the noble messenger (rasoolin kareem) coming down over the horizon, but that was not Jesus coming down.

"3.50: And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was
forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me."

Fine, no problem here. So the message is simple. He was a prophet of God sent to the children of Israel to take them away from the men (Pharisees and the Sadducees, who made their lives miserable) to bring them back to God and to abrogate unwarranted parts of the Torah.

"5.110: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother;
how I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit. (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103)."

It simply means "I strengthened you with the spirit of holiness". It shows that Jesus was granted a noble soul.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (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).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is no need to leave it. There is no controversy. Ruhul Ameen is the title of Gabriel.
Please read 26:103, which says, "Nazala bihi alrroohu al-ameen" ( brought down by the Faithful Spirit)


Hope this helped. I will write on Walad, Ruhullah, Kalimatuhu, etc., some other time. Thanks very much.

[AhmedBahgat]

Looks like after inmate pussy cat got molested by the freak minders, he got molested by Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie. do you want to be slammed again, inmate pussy cat?

[The Cat]

You're even worse than the straight forward Islam detractors such as myself because you have an underlying hidden agenda, whereas the clear detractors don't. And all for naught, except for the sacrifice of your integrity.

I guess it's the best answer you can come with on the topic of this thread!

You don't even understand the ethical meaning of 'integrity': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In ethics, integrity is regarded as the quality of having an intuitive sense of honesty and truthfulness.....

Integrity in modern ethics
Law professor Stephen L. Carter sees integrity not only as a refusal to engage in behavior that evades responsibility,
but also as an understanding of different modes or styles in which discourse attempts to uncover a particular truth.

Integrity, for you, being of course your taliban-like integrism. They too are asking for 'integrity'. It must be in this moralistic context,
related to integrists such as you and the Taliban, to adhere integrally to some beliefs: Do as we do and as told. It's then just another
word for fanaticism, on which you and the Talibans are much alike. They say: ''Let's destroy the West''; you say: Let's destroy Islam''

Let me grab some buttered popcorn...

[Skenderbeg]

Who really care's what the crap Quran says ? its all Mohammeds words and his criminal gang and nothing more..

Mohammed was a sick bastard who enjoyed playing prophet, it was good for him, it got him. slaves, robbing people. killing people. moleseting little girls, fkign slave females. also son's wife, and we care what his crap Quran says ?

Muslims make no sense they sayJesus was not divine but was like adam.....well not really he was nothing like Adam..

for one Adam was created from dust and had no mother died and was buried in the mud.......Jesus on the other hand had a mother unlike Adam, and unlike Adam Jesus was not buried but taken up alive to heaven to be with Allah himself, according to the Quran, so where is Jesus and Adam the same ? Mohammed just made things up and had no idea what the hell he was saying other then to confuse himself and his followers, I don't think Mohammed remembered what he said from one day to the other, much less from year to year.....the Quran was written after his death, his followers put whatever they wanted in their book, the Quran in my opinion is a book put together by Mohammed's criminal gang for personal power..and its not hard to see why they began killing each other as soon as he died, if they really believed he was a real prophet they wouldn't have slaughtered each other right after his death, they were all greedy dirt bags criminal gangsters who followed their Godfather in crime Mohammed

[The Cat]

Thanks Ghalib for sharing your thoughts...

I have already clarified above that there is no likeness between Allah and Adam and there is also no likeness between Allah and Jesus. I hope it is clear from the way, I moved "`Inda Allāhi " away for the sake of clarification.

Sorry Ghalib but you simply can't restructure a Koranic text like you've done, placing khalimathali before Mathala! For Inda Allahi (with Allah) is clearly after 'Inna Mathala Isa' thus establishing the first similitude. The 2nd similitude is also clearly introduced by 'Khamathali'. The first similitude establish Isa WITH Allah while the second, kha-mathali, differentiates Jesus' human body, made of dust in the likeness of Adam.

Let us see why Adam and Jesus are so differentiated...
In 2.33 and 2.37 Adam is instructed to give names BUT that's way different for Isa, sanctified through the Holy Spirit: 2.87: We supported him with the Holy spirit; 2.253 (idem), 5.110: I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit all are showing that Jesus is sanctified, something not said or given to any other one is he Adam, Abraham or Moses. He's the Massihrullah, the Ruhullah! Adam was instructed, Jesus instructed. See?

3.39, 3.45 and 66.12 all confirm the blessed status accorded to Isa as Allah's Ruhullah (Spirit, Word, Breath), so corroborated in 4.171. Then 3.59 can only emphasize the discrepancy of status between Jesus and Adam consistent with the differences demonstrated above (2.33/2.37). Still the angels were commanded to prostrate to Adam, including Jibril... the more so then with Jesus/Isa!

(In 81.19) Innahu refers to Quran in the verse. The translators added Quran in brackets to make the reader understand that. So, there is really no lying pen. You can also see the same in the translation of 81:19 and if you continue reading, you will see in 81:23 that Muhammad saw Gabriel, the noble messenger (rasoolin kareem) coming down over the horizon, but that was not Jesus coming down.

From 81.19-21, 86.13 and 69.40 the same picture arisen: Isa is God's Word in Spirit (Logos)

81.19 Certainly His Word (Jesus) is a Holy message (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

86.13: Lo! this is a conclusive Word (Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

69:40 That's indeed the Word of an illustrious messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin)

This illustrious messenger from birth can only be Jesus, 3.45: 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). I don't think
Gabriel is ever called 'illustrious' or a 'honored' messenger in the Koran, nor Muhammad, so all those verses must apply to Jesus.

As an angel, having no Free Will, who had to bow to Adam, Gabriel is an automaton and as such cannot be that illustrious.

Now, Isa is not only made a viceroy in the likeness of Adam (3.59/2.30), but he's a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

43:63
When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom,
and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

Here, Isa is not receiving revelations like all the other messengers, he's instructions all by himself (also 3.50)!
The wisdom (Ĥikmati) is not here given... but something he had from the cradle and even from inception...

The Koranic 'Isa' is not even a name but a lordly title...
Isa can only mean: Our Lord, stemming out right from Hinduism like in the Isa Upanishads, yet mixed with the Phoenician sun-god 'IES' (The One Light) at the origin of many Hebrew names, including Yeshua meaning The Healing Light. In short, the very name of ISA used in the Koran confers sovereignty to him, for it wasn't originally a name but a title! In correct Arabic Jesus would have been written: Yashu. Instead the Koran used -a title- indicating his godly, immaculate conception exactly like in Christianity... How's that! The very title of ISA was meant to be much deferential!

Still God doesn't have a biological son (ie. Arabic walid) but a spiritual soul-mate: His Word, Spirit, Logos. Curiously Ibn (of the belonging) isn't use to describe the Allah/Isa filiation, instead we find it to describe his filiation with... Mary, while it should be the other way around! The only way I can interpret this curiosity is that, in his human belonging (Abna Maryama), Jesus isn't to be consecrated but solely through his godly Spirit.

2.253: Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake,
while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary (Īsá Abna Maryama), clear proofs
and We supported him with the holy Spirit (Rūĥi Al-Qudusi).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (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).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

There is no need to leave it. There is no controversy. Ruhul Ameen is the title of Gabriel.
Please read 26:103, which says, "Nazala bihi alrroohu al-ameen" ( brought down by the Faithful Spirit)

There's no alrroohu al-ameen in 26.103 and the context is about Noah.

I find Gabriel mixed up and seriously confused in the Islamic tradition. For he ain't the Holy Spirit (as Muslims believe) and, like I've said,
as an angel without a will of his own, he has no more importance than let say the royal seal on a delivered message. Without such will of
his own, Gabriel can't be the 'Faithful Spirit' no more than let say a transmitting computer has spirit (although 'faithful').

But such is not the idea carried behind the notion of the Holy Spirit for anyone blessed by it is transfigured or, like you've said about 5.110:
''I strengthened you with the spirit of holiness". Indeed the Koranic notion of Ruhullah ascribed to Isa is about the same as the Christian
notion of Jesus being the Logos: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God''. (John 1.1). Best
translated by ''The Word made flesh'', transcribing the idea of Heraclius that the Logos was the Principle of divine order within knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope this helped. I will write on Walad, Ruhullah, Kalimatuhu, etc., some other time. Thanks very much.

Welcome and I'm grateful for your pondered answers. Yes do write about these whenever you can. I guess we will have to debate also the differences between Gabriel and the Holy Spirit! A fruitful argumentation is always when, instead of clashing-egos, we learn from each other which requires the kind of humility necessary for one to learn.

17.36: Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart -of each of these it will be asked.

17.37: And walk not in the earth exultant. Lo! thou canst not rend the earth, nor canst thou stretch to the height of the hills.

[The Cat]

Looks like after inmate pussy cat got molested by the freak minders, he got molested by Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie. do you want to be slammed again, inmate pussy cat?

About humility my friend you should read the Koran time again...

Now, since you've failed in the other thread to provide any proof of a physical town named makkata (as per 48.24) or 'Mecca' you simply slammed dunk yourself head on. Diodorus Siculus never specified any name or location, so you're left with no proof! This total absence, even in the verses where they're badly required, is a very strong indication that makkata isn't Mecca for, if so, it would have been written -many times- elsewhere. It's NOT !

All available evidences are showing that it couldn't have been a major trading or pilgrimage center in the 6th century. Prove me wrong!

I gave it to you that their chosen interpretation of 'destruction' wasn't the best choice out
of the CA dictionaries which was rather, in the context of the Hudaibiyyah's negociations:

Al-Ghani MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

So I've translated bibatna makkata with: ''in the midst of swindles''. Can you do better?
You don't even realize that free-mind got your holy book out of trouble where your stubbornness puts it back!

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Spoiler! :

Thanks Ghalib for sharing your thoughts...

I have already clarified above that there is no likeness between Allah and Adam and there is also no likeness between Allah and Jesus. I hope it is clear from the way, I moved "`Inda Allāhi " away for the sake of clarification.

Sorry Ghalib but you simply can't restructure a Koranic text like you've done, placing khalimathali before Mathala! For Inda Allahi (with Allah) is clearly after 'Inna Mathala Isa' thus establishing the first similitude. The 2nd similitude is also clearly introduced by 'Khamathali'. The first similitude establish Isa WITH Allah while the second, kha-mathali, differentiates Jesus' human body, made of dust in the likeness of Adam.

Let us see why Adam and Jesus are so differentiated...
In 2.33 and 2.37 Adam is instructed to give names BUT that's way different for Isa, sanctified through the Holy Spirit: 2.87: We supported him with the Holy spirit; 2.253 (idem), 5.110: I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit all are showing that Jesus is sanctified, something not said or given to any other one is he Adam, Abraham or Moses. He's the Massihrullah, the Ruhullah! Adam was instructed, Jesus instructed. See?

3.39, 3.45 and 66.12 all confirm the blessed status accorded to Isa as Allah's Ruhullah (Spirit, Word, Breath), so corroborated in 4.171. Then 3.59 can only emphasize the discrepancy of status between Jesus and Adam consistent with the differences demonstrated above (2.33/2.37). Still the angels were commanded to prostrate to Adam, including Jibril... the more so then with Jesus/Isa!

(In 81.19) Innahu refers to Quran in the verse. The translators added Quran in brackets to make the reader understand that. So, there is really no lying pen. You can also see the same in the translation of 81:19 and if you continue reading, you will see in 81:23 that Muhammad saw Gabriel, the noble messenger (rasoolin kareem) coming down over the horizon, but that was not Jesus coming down.

From 81.19-21, 86.13 and 69.40 the same picture arisen: Isa is God's Word in Spirit (Logos)

81.19 Certainly His Word (Jesus) is a Holy message (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

86.13: Lo! this is a conclusive Word (Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

69:40 That's indeed the Word of an illustrious messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin)

This illustrious messenger from birth can only be Jesus, 3.45: 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). I don't think
Gabriel is ever called 'illustrious' or a 'honored' messenger in the Koran, nor Muhammad, so all those verses must apply to Jesus.

As an angel, having no Free Will, who had to bow to Adam, Gabriel is an automaton and as such cannot be that illustrious.

Now, Isa is not only made a viceroy in the likeness of Adam (3.59/2.30), but he's a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

43:63
When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom,
and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

Here, Isa is not receiving revelations like all the other messengers, he's instructions all by himself (also 3.50)!
The wisdom (Ĥikmati) is not here given... but something he had from the cradle and even from inception...

The Koranic 'Isa' is not even a name but a lordly title...
Isa can only mean: Our Lord, stemming out right from Hinduism like in the Isa Upanishads, yet mixed with the Phoenician sun-god 'IES' (The One Light) at the origin of many Hebrew names, including Yeshua meaning The Healing Light. In short, the very name of ISA used in the Koran confers sovereignty to him, for it wasn't originally a name but a title! In correct Arabic Jesus would have been written: Yashu. Instead the Koran used -a title- indicating his godly, immaculate conception exactly like in Christianity... How's that! The very title of ISA was meant to be much deferential!

Still God doesn't have a biological son (ie. Arabic walid) but a spiritual soul-mate: His Word, Spirit, Logos. Curiously Ibn (of the belonging) isn't use to describe the Allah/Isa filiation, instead we find it to describe his filiation with... Mary, while it should be the other way around! The only way I can interpret this curiosity is that, in his human belonging (Abna Maryama), Jesus isn't to be consecrated but solely through his godly Spirit.

2.253: Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake,
while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary (Īsá Abna Maryama), clear proofs
and We supported him with the holy Spirit (Rūĥi Al-Qudusi).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (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).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

There is no need to leave it. There is no controversy. Ruhul Ameen is the title of Gabriel.
Please read 26:103, which says, "Nazala bihi alrroohu al-ameen" ( brought down by the Faithful Spirit)

There's no alrroohu al-ameen in 26.103 and the context is about Noah.

I find Gabriel mixed up and seriously confused in the Islamic tradition. For he ain't the Holy Spirit (as Muslims believe) and, like I've said,
as an angel without a will of his own, he has no more importance than let say the royal seal on a delivered message. Without such will of
his own, Gabriel can't be the 'Faithful Spirit' no more than let say a transmitting computer has spirit (although 'faithful').

But such is not the idea carried behind the notion of the Holy Spirit for anyone blessed by it is transfigured or, like you've said about 5.110:
''I strengthened you with the spirit of holiness". Indeed the Koranic notion of Ruhullah ascribed to Isa is about the same as the Christian
notion of Jesus being the Logos: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God''. (John 1.1). Best
translated by ''The Word made flesh'', transcribing the idea of Heraclius that the Logos was the Principle of divine order within knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope this helped. I will write on Walad, Ruhullah, Kalimatuhu, etc., some other time. Thanks very much.

Welcome and I'm grateful for your pondered answers. Yes do write about these whenever you can. I guess we will have to debate also the differences between Gabriel and the Holy Spirit! A fruitful argumentation is always when, instead of clashing-egos, we learn from each other which requires the kind of humility necessary for one to learn.

17.36: Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart -of each of these it will be asked.

17.37: And walk not in the earth exultant. Lo! thou canst not rend the earth, nor canst thou stretch to the height of the hills.

You are welcome, Cat. Will write in details later. This is a note for clarification. I made a typo-error in above, when I wrote:

"Ruhul Ameen is the title of Gabriel. Please read 26:103, which says, "Nazala bihi alrroohu al-ameen" ( brought down by the Faithful Spirit)[/quote]

and you rightly pointed out : "There's no alrroohu al-ameen in 26.103 and the context is about Noah."

The verse number is 26:193 and is a part of 26:192-197, which tells us clearly that Ruhul-Ameen was Gabriel, who came down to Muhammad. Sorry for the typo-error.

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie.

I thought you were kidding, when you wrote Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie. I searched on Google and found one Apple Pie on various forums.

Is this the poster, who thinks it is Jesus in 86:7, who was ejaculated "from between the loins and the ribs"? I read his stupid post here:

http://www.christianforums.net/f23/jesu ... oran-16836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is that the poster, you were referring to?

[Ghalibkhastahaal]

So I've translated bibatna makkata with: ''in the midst of swindles''.

I wish to comment on above. That is incorrect and you can't do that.

In order to understand 48:24, one must read all the verses 48:18-27 and the context becomes clear. There is nothing wrong in using the term, "in the midst" or "in the valleys" or "in the tummy" or "in the belt" or "in the gorges", etc.

Batn means tummy, belly, gorge, etc in Arabic. Bi added to Batn will give the word Bi-batn, which means in the belly or the valley, etc. Mecca has lots of hills and valleys.

Please let me try to make it easy using English. When Bi-batn is added to a person or place, an "i" or an "e" is used to connect with the next word, then Bibatni-Makka or Bibatne-Makka would mean in the valley of Makka.

The words in Arabic for Destruction and Swindles, are Tadmeer and fa'amliyat, respectively.

Since the name Makka comes within the verse and the verse continues, we read Makkatah and had the name Makka come at the end of the verse, it would still have been written as Makkatah but would be recited or read out as Makkah.

Hope this helped.

[AhmedBahgat]

Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie.

I thought you were kidding, when you wrote Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie. I searched on Google and found one Apple Pie on various forums.

Is this the poster, who thinks it is Jesus in 86:7, who was ejaculated "from between the loins and the ribs"? I read his stupid post here:

http://www.christianforums.net/f23/jesu ... oran-16836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is that the poster, you were referring to?

Yes he is. He is also called Chicken Lie