Christian reasoning Allah is the father of Jesus

Salam,

Surah 2:116 - They say: "Allah hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him. Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

The question to be asked is Jesus the son of Allah? The Qur'an emphatically says no. Yet as Christians we claimed that it is also entirely consistent with the Qur'an to consider Allah is the Father of Jesus for the following reasons: 1) Allah caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus 2) Allah determined some of the physical characteristics of Jesus 3) All of the genetic characteristics of Jesus were determined by just two parties: Allah and Mary.

A Muslim might argue "Being a father implies having sex", and therefore Allah cannot be the father. This is however not necessarily so. Modern science has brought us "test tube babies", which are conceived without any sex. There is nothing to support the idea that if Allah wants a baby, he must resort to normal human means to have one. And the Quran says “Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children". (S 37:151) but the question ask is where is the "lie" in the Christians reasoning above?

The Quran also stated in S2:116 They say: "Allah has begotten a Son". Glory be to Him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing, He need only say "Be", and it is.

The belief here is Allah made Mary pregnant. What more would Allah have to do if he wanted a legitimate son? Allah forbids that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say "Be," and it is! (S19:35). So is Allah unable to beget a son by saying "Be"? Say: "If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him". (S 43:81). So all these argument will not limit Allah to have a son!

The one thing that the Christians failed to understand is Allah does not need a son! They can use the verse S43:81 and stop there but the message continues and you will not be worshipping any son of God as this is the false attribute which they gave Him as the next verse S43:82 says “Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne (of Authority)! (He is free) from the things they attribute (to him)!”

There is therefore no contradiction in the Quran when Allah said He did not beget any son. This is the principle of unity that God do not need a partner whether from any sibling or with anybody. As it is stated in the whole of Surah 112: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He beget not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

Even to be a believer in the Quran one has first to declare Allah beget no son as to acknowledge the All Mighty He is One and Only One as in S17:111 we are commanded to:- Say: "Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" And in S18:4-5 it is stated “Further, that He may warn those (also) who say, "Allah hath begotten a son": No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying what they say is nothing but falsehood! Again in S10:68 as recorded in the Quran They say: "Allah hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrants have you for this! Say you about Allah what you know not? In the Quran it has been explained and warning given when He said in S23:90-91 “We have sent them the Truth: but they indeed practice falsehood! No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!

 

There is nothing in the Quran that clarify or insinuating that Allah would want a son this is blasphemy as Jesus is not the son of Allah he is just a messenger as stated in S4:171:- O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: or say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

Asar

 

Claimed of historical error Mary being the sister of Aaron by Rahul Balakrishnan

Salam,

 

Below is the rebuttal from the Quran exposing Rahul misunderstanding the situation of Mary based on his fallacies:-

  

He said  the Quran makes an embarrassing historical error when it borrows stories from the Bible. The error we have in spotlight here is that the Quran mentions Mary (Maryam), the mother of Jesus as the same Miriam (Maryam) who was supposedly the sister of Moses and Aaron according to the Bible. This is totally absurd since Moses (if at all he existed) lived more than 600-1000 years before Jesus. The evidence for this is so strong that the Quran repeats this mistake in two different ways. 1) By addressing Maryam, the mother of Jesus as "Sister of Harun (Aaron)" (Quran 19:28).  2) By mistaking Imran (Amram), the father of Moses and Aaron as the Grandfather of Jesus (Quran 3:35 - 36, 3:45).  Before I describe the evidence, let us show some generosity to the Quran by considering the possibility that the verse 19:28 is not referring to a biological sister. Is it then a mere coincidence that Aaron actually had a sister with the same name Maryam? Think over it. If the Quran is from God, then we have to accept that God was deliberately misleading humans into believing that Mary, the mother of Jesus was Aaron's sister. Or is God so careless that he didn't realize this and ended up using the word "sister"?

 

The Quran made no mistake when Allah referred “Mary as sister of Aaron” in the Arabic text. This guy Rahul is no different than any other disbelievers who made the same mistake taking the literal meaning of sister as “A female having the same parents as another or one parent in common with another.” He is making himself ridiculous accusing the Quran making Mary the mother of Jesus, Aaron and Moses as brothers and sister. However the Quran define “sister” of Aaron in a different perspective.

 

The Quran uses the word “sister” to mean a “woman who shares a common ancestry” which means in this case Mary is the descendent of Aaron. While highlighting Mary is the descendent from Aaron the Quran exposed the falsehood of the Bible that Aaron and Moses were brothers but they were only step brothers as they both have the same mother but a different father. There are evidences from the Quran that provide this fact that when Moses and Aaron were disputing after the Jews worship the golden calf Moses grabbed Aaron and this is what Aaron says:-

 

(Aaron) replied: "O son of my mother! Seize (me) not by my beard nor by (the hair of) my head! (Surah 20:94). This shows that they have different father and that is why Aaron refer Moses by the mother side and not the father’s side. And the Quran also provide the evidence that Mary as “sister” of Aaron is descendent of Aaron and not Moses as they have different family lineage as stated:-

 

And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the Covenant with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." (Surah 2:248)

 

So these verses of the Quran proved that there is no error Mary the mother of Jesus, Aaron and Moses are not brothers and sister but to establish the fact that Mary is the descendent of Aaron and not that of Moses and that Aaron and Moses were actually step brothers with the same mother but different father.

 

Further Rahul Balakrishnan said let us be even more generous by forgiving this. Now Muslims want to tell us that somehow, by sheer coincidence, the father of Mary (the mother of Jesus) had the same name as Amram (Imran in Arabic/Aramaic), the father of Miriam and Moses? Get over it folks... The author of Quran was actually mistaking Amram, the father of Miriam as the father of Mary. In other words, the author of the Quran was mistaking Mary, the mother of Jesus as Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron.

 

Here are the verses 19:27 - 19:34 from the Quran which show that the author of Quran mistook Mary, the mother of Jesus as the sister of Aaron: S19:27-32 - Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy? He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, and hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive,  And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.

 

Here are the verses 3:35-36 and 3:45 which show that the author of Quran further affirms his previous error by mistaking Amran, the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam as the grandfather of Jesus:- S3:35-36 - (Remember) when the wife of 'Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!  And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.

 

S3:45 - (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).

 

Here again Rahul made the same mistake by saying Imran in the Quran is mistaken as the father of Mary, Aaron and Moses and as the grandfather of Jesus. It has been proven that “Sister” of Aaron means in the Quran “descendent of Aaron” while Aaron and Moses do not share the same father but same mother and thus they have different family lineage. So this exposed the fabrication of the Bible on the family of Aaron and Moses by Allah addressing Mary as the “sister” of Aaron.

 

Another flaw that Rahul is using on the Quran is the meaning of “imra’atu” at Surah 3:35 which states “Behold! A woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service.” Here he uses the translation of the Arabic word “imra’atu” to mean wife of Imran and that is how he incurred the error that Imran is the father of Mary and the grandfather of Jesus. On the contrary if the meaning is taken as “a woman of Imran” then the meaning is not the wife of Imran but a family member of Imran as the following verse define the other meaning than a “wife” as stated:-

 

"I found (there) a woman (imra’atu) ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne. (Surah 27:23). This verse does not carry the meaning of “a wife” and similarly at Surah 3:35 the mother of Mary is not the wife of Imran and thus he is not the grandfather of Jesus as Rahul claimed.

 

Thus when Allah refer Mary as the “sister” of Aaron and Mary’s mother as “a woman” of Imran He is referring to “sister” as descendent of Aaron and Imran as patriarch of the family of Imran not the husband of Mary’s mother. Therefore there is no error in the Quran and it should not be understood by the falsehood of the Bible!

 

 

Rahul Balakrishnan said later Muslim writers were so embarrassed with this error. Ibn Kathir in the 14th century writes that the Quran actually did not mean "biological sister" when it said "O sister of Harun" and meant that Mary was actually resembling Harun in worship, thus completely overturning the explanation that Muhammad gave.

 

 Is it still possible that Mary's father was actually named Imran and that she had a brother named Harun? If you are thinking that way, you need to think why no other book ever mentioned this for more than 600 years since Mary's era until the Quran mentioned it? The obvious answer is that Quran borrowed it from Bible while making a fatal error.

There is no way to reconcile this embarrassing historical error. This only affirms that the author of Quran was actually borrowing second hand knowledge from books such as the Bible.

 

The Prophet (Pbuh) never copy anything from the Bible but the Quran is sent down to expose the falsehood of the Bible and to confirm whatever truth left of the Bible because it is the “muhaiminan” or guardian over previous scriptures as stated in Surah 5:15 and Surah 5:48:-

 

O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,  (Surah 5:15)

 

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. (5:48)

 

(It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil. (Surah 39:28)

 

 

Asar

 

 

 

 

 



Claimed of Inconsistence in waiting period (Iddah) rulings for divorced and widowed Women

 

Salam,

Surah 2:228 - Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

 

The perceived problem is the waiting period (iddah) rules for divorced and widowed women appear to be arbitrary and inconsistent according to the Quran. As a general rule when a marriage ends whether by a divorce or by the death of the husband, Islam prescribes a waiting period ('iddah) for the woman before she can marry again. S2:228 above is being prescribed is for divorced woman a waiting period of three month but in S65:4 is for those pregnant it says “for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens.” However in S2:234 it says “If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do.

 

The discrepancy is a woman who was divorced by her husband has to wait (at least) three monthly periods and a woman whose husband died has to wait (at least) four months and ten days before they can marry again. The main objective appears to be that there should be no doubts as to the identity of the father if the woman gives birth to a child later on. Within this period it should become obvious whether or not a woman is pregnant. If she turns out to be pregnant, then her waiting period lasts until the birth of the child, otherwise she is free to remarry after the three months are over. One could certainly wonder why a widow has to wait longer than a divorced woman, and view this as an inconsistency or injustice, but this issue shall not be the disputant concern in the present paper.

 

More interesting is the observation that the Qur'an makes an explicit exception to the above mentioned rule for divorced women:

 

O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of waiting (iddah) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. (S. 33:49)

 

This ayah also by interpretation contains a command from Allah that requires the wives whose husbands die, that they should observe a period of `Iddah of four months and ten nights, including the cases where the marriage was consummated or otherwise, according to the consensus (of the scholars).

 

Here, however, is the inconsistency: The Qur'an does not grant the widow the same exception as the divorcee. If the marriage is terminated before it was consummated — whether by divorce or by the death of the husband — why does the widow have to undergo a waiting period of four months and ten days, but the divorcee is free to marry as soon as she likes? Why are these two women not treated equally?

 

Furthermore the Qur'an states explicitly that divorced and widowed women have to observe a waiting period of three months or four months and ten days respectively, see S. 2:228, 65:4 and 2:234 quoted above. There are no exceptions stated for widowed women. There are two exceptions stated for divorced women: (a) If the woman is pregnant then her waiting period ends with the delivery of the child (S. 65:4), (b) if the couple has not consummated their marriage, then there is no waiting period at all (S. 33:49).

 

This reveals the second inconsistency. Both exceptions are stated for the divorced woman only but the commentators apply exception (a) also to widowed women, while they do not accept that exception (b) is also applied to them.

 

To summarize again the inconsistency: There are two inconsistencies. (1) When a marriage is terminated before it is consummated, the women are treated vastly differently. The divorcee can marry again immediately, but the widow has to wait at least four months and ten days. (2) In the Qur'an, there are two exceptions to the normal waiting period for a divorced woman. There are no exceptions mentioned for the widowed woman. The Muslim commentators and jurists apply one of the exceptions that is given for the case of a divorce also to the case of the widow, i.e. they extend the application of the law based on analogy, but they refuse the application of the second exception even though the same kind of analogy could be used.

 

(Excursus: For illustration, imagine the following two cases: Couple A and couple B just married. As is still common in many parts of the Islamic world, it may even be a marriage arranged by relatives, i.e. husband and wife may hardly have known each other before the wedding ceremony. Shortly after the wedding something happens which greatly upsets the husband and he becomes very angry at his wife. Husband A pronounces a divorce against his new wife. Husband B has a weak heart, and before he can divorce his wife, he dies of a heart attack. The situation is very similar in both cases, but the Quran ruling is very different. None of the couples ever consummated their marriage. Both women find themselves without husband shortly after their wedding. Yet, the first one is free to marry immediately, while the second one has to observe a waiting period of four months and ten days.)

 

The above misunderstanding by any disputant or doubter can be put to order if one puts the different situation in it right perspective. There is a different in situation the reason the Quran allows the divorcee can remarry immediately but the widow could not do the same. In the former the divorced couple is still living and both can stand witnesses that no consummation took place and there is therefore guaranty by each of them that no pregnancy will take place. In addition the Quran specify that the divorced husbands are given priority to mend and take their wife back in which S2:228 stated “And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation.” They can reconcile their differences and immediately remarry. However in the case of the widow there in none to bear witness except herself and therefore the ruling is making surety that the four months period will clear any doubt on pregnancy is therefore fair to be observed.

 

Furthermore the amount of dowry is also a factor to the different of waiting period in the above when a divorced case happen without consummation the divorcee is allowed to retain half for herself and return the other half to the former husband as stated in S2:237 “ And if ye divorce them before consummation, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For Allah sees well all that ye do.” Whereas in the case of the widow the full sum of the dowry can be kept for her own self and naturally that will commensurate with the period of waiting.

 

Nevertheless the waiting period for the widow of four month and ten days compared to none for the divorcee is more to express a period of mourning an expression of one who has suffered a time of bereavement and also showing respect during that period to the family of her late husband. It is not proper or decent for a widow to immediately remarry when the family members are in period of bereavement and thus the period of waiting is morally acceptable in any community.

 

Asar