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

[psyah]

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

@Mr.Popat

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.

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 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 ?

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 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.

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.

Mr.Popat

Man your logic skills are so poor …

Let’s entertain your logical construct:

Henry is a human. {} Humans make mistakes - therefore >>> Henry makes mistakes

This is what you are saying … but this is logically flawed. It will only be true if you put the word ALL in the position of those curly brackets.

**Qad Khalat

**1) In both verses it does not say all prophets … it ask us to entertain examples from the group of prophets that have come and gone.

2. In the verses the context is not regarding the death of those who passed before them but it is setting an appeal to look at previous prophets examples.

3. The parts that tell us how we are to consider the prophets that have come and gone are different in both verses …

Slain or killed in one verse
To eat in the other verse

Regarding your statement that I have highlighted in blue - yes there is another way … Ascension/Translation - The prophets have left by this mechanism as well. Isa (AS) was one of them. This adds to the reason why “Qad Khalat” has been used and not “mawt”

Regarding your statement that I have highlighted in green - you cannot say this because as stated in 1) above in this reply it does not say ALL and hence Isa (AS) can be excluded from this example - rather Isa (AS) should be excluded from this example because he did not die not was he slain (AS).

Regarding the attribute of death - It is not that to be alive that is Godly and to be dead is ungodly - but rather to be able to die that is an attribute of creation and for death to be impossible to be the Attribute of God.

So it is irrelevant that Isa (AS) is alive - the fact that we believe **he (AS) can die and will die **removes any blame from us - that you so desperately want to pin on us.

So it is also irrelevant that Isa (AS) is eating or had eaten in the past - the fact that we believe **he ate - **removes any blame that you want to pin on us of him in any way being godly for not eating now … No … God never eats … So please get it right.

Conclusion: This verse does not prove Isa (AS) has died to say so is not only wishful thinking - but self-deluding.