Details of interpreting verses from the Qur'an and obvious blunders

[Mr.Popat]

Re: Details of interpreting verses from the Qur’an and obvious blunders

@psyah

Peace Mr.Popat

I have clear objection on your assertion that this verse in any way proves Isa (AS) has died. I showed this because it does not say anywhere in the verse that he died … Rather this verse demonstrates that he may be alive because it is not constructed in same way it could have been constructed with the other verse that we have compared it with.

I will keep this reply very short.

Verse on Muhammad PBUH starts like this >> "And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, Messengers have passed away before him’’ 3-144

Verse on Isa a.s starts like this >> " The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him"

Verse on Isa a.s have 2 parts to it. I’ve stated one. The part of eating is for Christians. For they believe God to have come in form of human. Jesus a.s ate along with his mother. Either they’re both dead or both alive. Though, the first part of both the verses states prophets before him passed away, and so did Muhammad PBUH and Jesus a.s.

Also … I have clearly said this verse with reference to eating is not in the past perfect tense … It is past imperfect … Which means that when the event was observed the act was being done … But there is no information on whether it has stopped being done. In the other thread you rightly called it maadi istimrari … But you wrongly described what istimrari means.

You can’t have something that is ‘continuous’ and yet ‘completed’ at the same time and that is what you have said in the other thread.

Yes, you can have an act being done continuously in the past and then the act can never happen again. Because something used to happen in past does not in any way mean it still happens.

Qad Khalat in both verses does not provide any meaning of death to either the prophet Muhammad (SAW) nor does it do so for prophet Isa (AS) either … In both cases it is there to ask people to look at past examples of prophets that have come and gone …

Qad khalat in both verses is pointing to the prophets who ‘died’ yes, died before them. You’re unnecessarily and purposely taking the literal meaning of that term to mean ‘come and gone’ and leaving it at that, without further stating what ‘come and gone’ means to you.

Muhammad PBUH was a messenger. Messengers have passed away before him. Does it mean Messengers have passed away before him, but Muhammad pbuh did not pass away ? We do know messengers have passed away before him (including isa a.s), and so did Muhammad PBUH.

Remember the example i gave way before.. “Henry is just a human. Humans tend to make mistakes” You are taking the meaning as "Since henry is a human , humans make mistake but Henry cannot make mistake " Which is obviously wrong.

Likewise, Isa a.s was just a messengers, and messengers like him have passed away. Does it mean Jesus a.s has not ? What more clear proof do you need ?

You have asked a secondary question about … How they have gone … And this is a mixed bag … Besides completely irrelevant because it does not bear on the clause of the sentence at all.

The context of the one is being slain or killed and the context for the other is were eating …

The question of how you are taking ‘come and gone’ is very much relevant. You cannot just run away after saying this. Context of one is being slain and killed, glad you admitted. Lets talk about that verse .. Prophets before Muhammad PBUH have passed away in a way that some were killed and some died a natural death. Jesus a.s was just before Muhammad PBUH. There is no way you can find any other way of passing away when it comes to talking about prophets.

Context for the other verse has eating as an example. That is the 2nd part of that verse. First part is in which Jesus a.s is included in prophets who passed away.

To die or to eat are two different verbs and both of them are ungodly … My further contention was expressed at your attempt to say that eating was done … To jump to conclude that eating is not done now … To make the final jump to therefore they have died …

I say.

A) the phrase is not past perfect so we can’t say it is done and dusted
B) as a result we can’t conclude eating is not done now
C) we can also not conclude that eating IS being done, because there are other ways Allah (SWT) may choose to sustain life.
D) to say Isa (AS) has died from this is flawed … And against the accepted opinion of the scholars. Who use the clear ahadith telling us that Isa (AS) ibn Maryam (AS) will return.

To die or to eat are both ungodly. Ok fair enough. You are using the exact two qualities on Jesus a.s. He has not died and he does not eat. Therefore, upgrading his status to that of God or the like of God nauzubillah.

A) if eating alone was the only example that Allah needed to give, then He could have said he a.s eats food. But we see a past tense being used. Something that he used to do along with his mother. Strange ?

C) To answer your point C, ill quote 2 verses from Qur’an.

                 [21:7] And We sent none as Messengers before thee but men to whom We sent revelations. So ask the people of the Reminder, if you know not.

[21:8] And We did not give them bodies that ate no food, nor were they to live for ever.

All messengers were men(humans).
Their body required food.

To say Allah may choose to sustain life in other ways goes against clear teaching of the above verses. If the prophet does “NOT” require food to survive, we conclude that :

1. He a.s is not a human
2. He a.s is not a messenger
3. If he a.s is sustained in some other way, then he can be anything except for a messenger and a human, nauzubillah.

PS: reply got long. I apologize.