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

Society Religion & Philosophy
301

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

Peace Bigboi

I have not read all the books, but I have a copy of Tadkhira ... And I have read parts of it. I have acces to other books too ... It's a pointless question which is why I didn't answer it ...

302

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

This is not a pointless question or do you think that it is a pointless question if I ask people who attack the Holy Qur'an without Knowledge/Evidence, did you read the whole Book?

I can't even understand how this is pointless. It's like when someone failed and being asked did you learn, the questioned person answers: It's pointless, I failed anyway.

"It's pointless, I understood the whole concept by reading bits of Tadkirah and I access to some other Books". Bravo Psyah, I must applaude. See you Brother.

"It's pointless, I did some 2+2 and now I can teach you Algebra"

It seems like I'm wasting my time.

303

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

Peace Bigboi

I have not presented anything from MGAQ, I have been asking you questions and expected you to answer them ... I have no reason to bring MGAQ's work forward as this thread is primarily about how Qur'anic Interpretation should be done. I don't believe his work to hold any authority so please explain why I should have read his work? Rather I have read our own works and the books of Tawheed are clear on how we understand things in Islam.

The works which predate MGAQ, which is why you should also be following them too.

304

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

At this point, I think you are doing it on purpose. You dont see to what extent you take yourself just to keep on debating without any reason. Allah says that Muhammad PBUH is not the father of any of you men, but then in another verse it is said that the ummah of Muhammad PBUH is his progeny (ofcourse spiritually). Like I said earlier, being the direct relation of Muhammad PBUH does NOT guarantee that the person will be pious. History is the witness. Noah a.s's son was a disbeliever. Pharoah's wife was a pious lady etc. So kindly correct your understanding.

Why is it that you keep bringing Imam Mahdi in to discussion? I have provided to you verses which shows Isa a.s death. Your job now is to prove him living ... and only this way will you get somewhere. There is absolutely no need for you to talk about Imam Mahdi at this time. I can answer you to this post of yours too but really.. I dont see a reason why I should. I will eventually answer, if only i get my response.

I explained 2 verses to which you still have not answered. This is like my 100th time asking anyone to explain me.

One verse was regarding Jesus. Jesus a.s was a messenger just like others. And messengers like him have passed away. Jesus along with his mother used to eat.

If Jesus a.s was messenger like others, then just like how others died, he died as well. Since Allah is telling Christians how He a.s cannot be God, he presented 2 arguments in the verse. Death and eating. Since Allah does not die and does not eat.. and Jesus used to eat and also has died, therefore he cannot be God. To say that Allah only used the argument of eating is not right. If you say God never dies, and never eats, these 2 attributes are limited to God only. To say Jesus a.s used to eat, does not eat anymore and YET he a.s is alive is associating partners with Allah and Christians stand corrected by calling him God or son of God.

[QUOTE]
3:144 And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.
[/QUOTE]

This was another verse. Muhammad pbuh died and messengers before him have passed away too. Allah explained the ways of passing away. There are only two ways messengers passed away. 1) natural death 2) being killed. There is no 3rd way of passing away. Isa a.s was before Muhammad PBUH and we know since jews did NOT kill him, he a.s died a natural death. No other possibility.

305

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

Buddy!!
how is it 'really really pointless' ?? Allah says they both used to eat food. What does that tell you??? He (a.s) is no longer eating. Who does not eat dies !! where is the rocket science in this ?? Jesus a.s also was a messenger like others, and just like others have passed away , so did He ( as stated in the verse ). Tell me how is this pointless?

You are to live forever once you DIE!. You are making a joke out of yourself here. On Earth, whoever is living creature MUST die!

You say we do not share same aqeedah! .. yeah you know what? we really dont. You come up with your aqeedah based on what your mullahs tell you.. without even confirming from Qur'an, whereas i'm here talking on the basis of Quran. Aqeedah should be in accordance to Quran and ahadith!

So, talk to me !! I cannot let this thing go ! You are making up stuff. You are contradicting Quran and your aqeedah. Make your aqeedah in accordance to Quran rather than interpret Quran based on your aqeedah. That is very sad !

You are telling me Allah says that therein shall you live , and then you are telling me if allah does not have the power to keep human alive without food outside of Earth ? Really? Go ask your scholars why your own explanation contradict what Allah says in Quran.

306

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

Peace** Popat** – To tell you the truth at present time I have terrible flu, but must pay more attention to Ramadan. So I’ll take your advice and take my time to answer you – Though Brother psyah has dealt with it very thoroughly, so it’s going to be very cyclic.

With my hand sincerely on my heart I pray that May Allah the Most Gracious and Most Merciful guide you to Islam as taught by the blessed Prophet Muhammad (saw) and practiced by his blessed Companions (May Allah (swt) be pleased with them all) May Allah, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful, open your heart to the true faith ease your journey seeking for the truth and eventually gift you with the blessings of true faith, inner peace and success in Hereafter Aameen. (sniff, sniff - sorry running nose)

In the name of Allah, We praise Him, seek His help and ask for His forgiveness. Whoever Allah guides none can misguide, and whoever He allows to fall astray, none can guide them aright. We bear witness that there is no one worthy of worship but Allah Alone, and we bear witness that Muhammad (saws) is His slave-servant and the seal of His Messengers.

May Allah Guide us all to Truth and keep us on the straight path, and improve our affairs and purify us for the hereafter, Aameen.

The above is from my heart. (sniff, sniff - sorry running nose)

Just had time for this:

Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were sitting with the Prophet Surat Al-Jumu’a was revealed to him, and when the Verse, "And He (Allah) has sent him (Muhammad) also to other (Muslims)…’ (62.3) was recited by the Prophet, I said, “Who are they, O Allah’s Apostle?” The Prophet did not reply till I repeated my question thrice.
At that time, Salman Al-Farisi was with us. So Allah’s Apostle put his hand on Salman, saying, "If Faith were at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiya (pleiades, the highest star), even then (some men or man from these people (i.e. Salman’s folk) would attain it." ** Sahih Al Bukhari Book 6 Volume 60 No. 420**

General consensus among Muslims is that Hz. Abu Hanifah (rahimullah) qualifies for this honour.

MGAQ statements about his ethnicity/origins

“My biography is as such that my name is Mirza Ghulam Ahamd, my father’s name is Ghulam Murztaza, grand father’s name is Ata Muhammad and my great grand father’s name was Gul Muhammad. As it has been stated that our tribe (Qaum/Zaat) is Mughal Barlas. And from my families old document which are still present my ancestors migrated from Samarkand”. Kitab-ul-Barriyah page 162

Note: He says that his name is: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - It ain’t Ahmad

Note: Documentary proof “And from my families old document which are still present my ancestors migrated from Samarkand”

The founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat was Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, alayhe salam. His father’s name was Mirza Ghulam Murtaza and his mother’s name was Chiragh Bibi (lady of the lamp). His grandfather was Mirza Ata Muhammad (d.1814), and his great grandfather was Mirza Gul Muhammad (d.1800).

Hadhrat Ahmad (AS) belonged to the Birlas branch of the respectable Mughal family. The surname of this family is Mirza that is why all members of this family use Mirza as their surname. Mirza Hadi Beg was the forefather of this family who migrated to India in 1530 from his hometown Samarqand with two hundred others during the reign of Mughal King Zaheer al-Din Babur.

A Brief History of Ahmadiyya Movement In Islam
**
Suddenly a calculated shift in ethnicity to ‘fit in’ with the hadith.**

“It should be remembered that apparently the family of this humble one is that of the Moghuls. No record has been seen in the history of our family, showing that the family was Persian. What has been seen in certain records is that some of our grandmothers were of noble and noted Sayyid families. Now it has come to be known through the word of God that ours is a Persian family. We believe in this with all our conviction since the reality- in respect of genealogies is known to none the way it is known to Allah, the Exalted. It is His knowledge alone which is true and sure and that of all others, doubtful and conjectural.” (Araba’in, Vol. 11, p. 17 n.)

Note: No record has been seen in the history of our family, showing that the family was Persian. What has been seen in certain records is that some of our grandmothers were of noble and noted Sayyid families.

Now new claim to have Prophet (saw)'s bloodline through unknown grandmothers - guess this too was a last-minute discovery!

Now the claim to the said Hadith

“The revelation (ilham) about me is that: Were it that faith was hanging from the Pleiades it would still have been seized by the man from Persia. And then, there is also a third revelation about me: Verily, those who disbelieved the man from Persia disproved their religions. God is thankful for his endeavour. All these ‘revelations’ show that our forefathers were Persian. And the truth is what Allah has made manifest.” (Kitab at-Bariyah, p. 135 n.)

Note: before it was ‘some’ grandmothers who were Persian.

307

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

Peace Mr.Popat

The verse does not say "they used to eat" - you are making this up ... this is what I mean by interpretation blunders ...

Now listen carefully:

a) If Allah (SWT) so Wills He can keep any living creature alive without food
b) The Qur'an does not say "they used to eat" and therefore you cannot conclude "they, either or both are not eating now"
c) The Qur'an specifically says "they were eating" - now if you understood grammar you will understand the difference between "they were eating" and "they used to eat" ... one is past tense, the other is past-perfect tense ... these are very different in Arabic just like in English ... you cannot confuse the two ... One means something happened in the past, but may or may not be happening now, the other means it happened then and is not happening now.

d) This verse could have spoken about death, but it didn't it spoke about eating ...
e) Eating itself is a non-Divine Attribute - you don't need anything else to say ... if anything eats it is not Divine ... and certainly cannot conclude further they are both dead ...

I am currently alive - but I eat .. now I am mortal not because I am dead, it can be argued because I will eventually die, but the reason enough is that I eat ... It is not befitting for God to eat ... nor does He require it.

308

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

Here you go:

[QUOTE]
Sahih InternationalThe Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
Muhsin Khan
The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddiqah *. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth).
Pickthall
The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
Shakir
The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.
Dr. Ghali

In no way is the Masih son Maryam (The Messiah son of Mary) (anything) except a Messenger. The Messengers before him already passed away, and his mother was constantly sincere; they both used to eat food. Look how evident We make the signs to them; (then) thereafter look (again) however they are diverged (into falsehood).
[/QUOTE]

Now listen carefully:

[QUOTE]
a) If Allah (SWT) so Wills He can keep any living creature alive without food
b) The Qur'an does not say "they used to eat" and therefore you cannot conclude "they, either or both are not eating now"
c) The Qur'an specifically says "they were eating" - now if you understood grammar you will understand the difference between "they were eating" and "they used to eat" ... one is past tense, the other is past-perfect tense ... these are very different in Arabic just like in English ... you cannot confuse the two ... One means something happened in the past, but may or may not be happening now, the other means it happened then and is not happening now.

d) This verse could have spoken about death, but it didn't it spoke about eating ...
e) Eating itself is a non-Divine Attribute - you don't need anything else to say ... if anything eats it is not Divine ... and certainly cannot conclude further they are both dead ...
[/QUOTE]

a) If Allah wills, He can. But he will not. Since He says that we have not sent any messenger before thee but they all used to eat and used to walk in markets. In another verse, it says, we have not created their bodies that did not need food. Meaning, they needed food to survive. No human despite being prophets were such who did not need food. You are violating Quran by saying anything that comes to your mind.

b) Quran does say they used to eat. The verse combines both, Jesus and Virgin Mary in this act of eating. They both used to eat. They no longer eat now. If Jesus a.s is alive, then so is Mary. Or else, both died.

c) No. It does not say that. It says they used to eat. If you understand grammar , you should not if someone used to do something, it does not need to say that one does not do it anymore. It is to be understood as that. I used to live in Pakistan. I need not to say that i am no longer in Pakistan.

d) It did speak about death! Messengers like Jesus a.s have passed away. And Jesus a.s was just a messenger like them ( refer to the verse ). Allah does not eat, and allah does not die. Whereas, Jesus not only used to eat, but also have died. To say that He does not eat but is still alive is saying the attribute that is only limited to God alone is also present in Jesus a.s which is shirk.

[QUOTE]
I am currently alive - but I eat .. now I am mortal not because I am dead, it can be argued because I will eventually die, but the reason enough is that I eat ... It is not befitting for God to eat ... nor does He require it.
[/QUOTE]

If it is said for you or someone else that Harry used to eat. It means he no longer eats. If i were to say Harry no longer eats chicken.. it would mean he eats everything else except chicken. Once it is used as... he 'used to eat'.. it does not need any explanation and should be very self explanatory that he no longer eats. Yes, he does not eat 'anything'.

The verse is quite beautiful in this regard. Allah first declared him dead by combining him with other prophets who were before Him and then says that he used to eat. Had it only been about the case of eating, Allah should not have said messengers like him have passed away and that he was just a messenger just like them. What does that imply ?*

309

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

Thanks. Hope you feel better. Keep yourself indulged in prayers. May Allah enable all of us to strive for the right path. Whichever path it is. Stay blessed in this holy month. I have got same prayers for you as well. Be all well soon.

Ok. So you have problem with him not being Persian or him not being from the progeny of Muhammad PBUH. You should have one objection right. Either you will accept him because he a.s is Persian or you will accept Him because of his family tree going back to Muhammad PBUH ? I’m confused. If I were to prove to you that He a.s is infact from Persian origin, will you accept him ?

If i were to show you that he was from persian descent, are you ready to accept Him?

310

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

Peace Mr.Popat

Regardless how the translations have been done ... "they used to eat" but my point is that it is not something definitive that they have stopped eating, because the Arabic does not say that "they have stopped eating" - necessarily.

Qaana = Was or Were
Ya'kulaani = (Those two are eating)
Ta'aama = Food

In such sentences although the verb used is in present tense the the Qaana takes the meaning in to the past tense ...
**Those two were eating food

**akalaa = those two ate
kad akalaa = those two had eaten

ya'kulaani = those two are eating
kaana ya'kulaani = those two were eating

The translation "those two used to eat" is irregular ... My point stemmed from the Arabic meaning not about the translation used really ... My point is the verb is imperfect and hence it cannot be concluded that the act is a closed book

311

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

Ok so is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from the family of the prophet or from the Mongols and if he was Persian then how does that make him from the family of the prophet?

312

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

You are well aware of the fact that Non-Muslims bring there arguments forward in the same way you do. "I don't believe his work to hold any authority, but I can talk about him" lol. You are a joker.

"I don't believe the Holy Qur'an holds any authority, because Muhammad (saw) was a liar! Why should I read the Holy Qur'an?"

You have made him a liar without reading his Books. This is a fact. Did you do the same when you were about to study Algebra? "I will not study it, because he is a liar"...You studied it because you needed it to get forward. How can you say that you do not need to study the Books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), but in the same time you entitle yourself to talk about him? I think if I continue reading your Post, I will get blind.

But you had time to read pages cut out of his Books, cut out of the context. There you had time. All of a sudden these pages held authority to you and your likes to judge about the work of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Why do you fool us and yourself? People you see and read it! 2-3 pages cut out of the book, pages cut of the context hold authority enough to judge about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This is what you are saying Psyah and your double standard really shocks me, leaves me speechless.

See you Brother. I'm done here for awhile. See you someday again. I have to recover from that shock.
Mr. Popat is here, he's got enough Stamina to run with you in circles.

ibn Sadique, Mirza is a Persian title.

313

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

I have no double standard here ... I have read much material written by Ahmadis ... A few things by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, the parts I read we're poor or very strange, some things I did however, agree with him on, but many things he wrote were already out there written by people like Ibn Arabi, Imam Al-Ghazali ...

When I started reading about him I wanted to see what is being said ... The fact is there is not fitting with the existing Islamic material ... His ideology turns Islam on its head. When I read the parts where he praised the British government I switched off.

Rather it is you who deny Allah (SWT) in His Tawheed ... It is you who have raised the question whether Allah (SWT) can or cannot sustain life without food. It is you who have interpolated meaning into that verse that he ate therefore he has died ... I am not the one going against the Muslim consensus ...you are.

314

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

Peace Popat Thanks yes we must always keep striving for the Truth and never be contented/complacent /smug with what is our current situation. Guidance is form Allah (swt) alone.

I have no problem with whatever ethnicity MGAQ wants to accredit himself with. It’s just his inconsistency always changing positions and relying on ever ready ‘WAHI’ to back up his claim.

Believe me, if it had helped his cause he would have managed to link himself with British Royalty. And he would have WAHI ready at hand to vouch for his claim.

This is just a minor issue – The major issues is that the Quran and authentic ahadith are against him.

Popat I think you were not being fair to **brother psyah **– In verse 5:75 it is not exclusively as you want it to be - “They both used to eat food.” Have a look at the various translations.

Muhammad Asad The Christ, son of Mary, was but an apostle: all [other] apostles had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. Behold how clear We make these messages unto them: and then behold how perverted are their minds!

M. M. Pickthall The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!

**Shakir ** The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

Yusuf Ali Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar The Messiah son of Mary was not but a Messenger. Surely, Messengers passed away before him. And his mother was a just person (f). They both had been eating food. Look on how We make manifest the signs to them. Again, look on how they are misled!
**
Wahiduddin Khan** Christ, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. Many messengers passed away before him. His mother was a virtuous woman; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. See how We make the signs clear to them! See how they turn away!
**
T.B.Irving** Christ the son of Mary was only a messenger; messengers have passed away before him. His mother was sincere. They both ate food. Look how We explain signs to them; then look [again] how they shrug them off!

Al-Muntakhab Indeed, the Messiah, the son of Maryam, was no more than a Messenger; many Messengers like him have passed away before him. His mother was a woman vested with saintliness of life and character; she and her son consumed food. See how We expound to them Our revelations, yet you see how they counsel deaf.

Progressive Muslims The Messiah son of Mary, is no more than a messenger; like whom messengers have passed away; and his mother was trustworthy, they used to eat the food. See how We clarify the signs for them, then see how they deviate.
**
Abdel Haleem** The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food [like other mortals]. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are.

**Abdul Majid Daryabadi ** The Masih, son of Maryam, was naught but an apostle; surely there passed away apostles before him and his mother was a saintly woman; both of them were wont to eat food. Behold! how We expound unto them the evidences! Then behold! whither they are deviating!

Ahmed Ali ** The Christ, son of Mary, was but an apostle, and many apostles had (come and) gone before him; and his mother was a woman of truth. They both ate the (same) food (as men). Behold, how We show men clear signs, and behold, how they wander astray!
**
Aisha Bewley The Messiah, the son of Maryam, was only a Messenger, before whom other Messengers came and went. His mother was a woman of truth. Both of them ate food. See how We make the Signs clear to them! Then see how they are perverted!

**Ali Ünal ** The Messiah, son of Mary, was but a Messenger; Messengers had passed away before him; and his mother was an upright one wholly devoted to God; both of them ate food (as do all mortals). Look, how We make the truths clear to them, then look how they are turned away from the truth and make false claims!

Ali Quli Qara’i The Messiah, son of Mary, is but an apostle. Certainly [other] apostles have passed before him, and his mother was a truthful one. Both of them would eat food. Look how We clarify the signs for them, and yet, look, how they go astray!

Amatul Rahman Omar The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger, all the Messengers have (like him) passed away before him, his mother was a highly truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the arguments for their good, yet see, how they are turned away (from the truth).

**Hamid S. Aziz ** The Messiah, the son of Mary, is only a Messenger: Messengers like him have passed away before him; and his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat food. See how We clearly explain to them the revelations, yet see how they turn aside!

Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali In no way is the Masih son Maryam (The Messiah son of Mary) (anything) except a Messenger. The Messengers before him already passed away, and his mother was constantly sincere; they both used to eat food. Look how evident We make the signs to them; (then) thereafter look (again) however they are diverged (into falsehood).

Muhammad Sarwar Jesus, the son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom there lived many other Messengers. His mother was a truthful woman and both of them ate earthly food. Consider how We explain the evidence (of the Truth) to them and see where they then turn.

Muhammad Taqi Usmani The MasiH, son of Maryam, is no more than a Messenger. There have been messengers before him. His mother was very truthful. Both of them used to eat food. Look how We explain signs to them, then see how far they are turned away.

Shabbir Ahmed The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a Messenger, like other Messengers before him who passed on. And his mother was a woman of truth. Both of them were human beings who had to eat food (like all other mortals). See how clearly We explain Our verses for them and note how they keep wandering in thought!
**
Syed Vickar Ahamed ** Messiah (Christ), the son of Maryam (Mary) was no more than a messenger; (And there were) many messengers that have passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both had to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah does make His Signs clear to them; Yet see in what ways they are misguided far from the truth!

Umm Muhammad (Sahih International) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

**Farook Malik **Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many Messengers had already passed away before him. His mother was a truthful woman; they both ate earthly food like other human beings. See how the Revelations are made clear to them to know the reality; yet see how they ignore the truth!

Dr. Munir Munshey Christ, son of Mary was no more than a messenger! Many messengers have passed before his time. His mother was a righteous woman and (like all mortals) both of them had to eat (to live). See how clear have We made Our signs for them! Yet, see how they wander astray.

Tahir-ul-Qadri The Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), is (nothing) but a Messenger (neither a god nor a son of God, and nor His partner). Many Messengers have indeed preceded him and his mother was a paragon of truth (saintly person). Both (were mortal creatures as they) used to eat food. (O Beloved!) Observe how clearly We explain the Revelations for their (guidance) but again observe how (in spite of that) they are turning away (from the Truth).

Dr. Kamal Omar Al-Maseeh, Ibn-o-Maryam is none but a Messenger. Definitely went before him (many) Messengers while his mother (had been) a Siddiqah. They both used to eat food (which is essential to sustain a human being physically). Look how We explain to them the proofs, yet look how they indulge in falsehood.

Bilal Muhammad Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger. Many were the Messengers who passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both had to eat their food. See how God makes His signs clear to them, yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth?

Maududi The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!

**Bijan Moeinian ** Messiah, son of Mary was no more than a Prophet. Many Prophets like him came and gone. His mother was a righteous woman. they both ate food [as they were humans.] See how I clearly make my point and note how they still resent the truth.

**Faridul Haque **The Messiah, the son of Maryam, is purely a Noble Messenger; many Noble Messengers have passed before him; and his mother is a truthful woman; they both used to eat food; see how We make the signs clear for them, and see how they turn away!

Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah The Messiah, the son of Mary, was not except a Messenger, other Messengers had gone before him.His mother was in the state of sincerity, they both ate food. See how We make plain to them Our signs.Then, see how perverted they are.

Maulana Muhammad Ali The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the messages clear to them! then behold, how they are turned away!

Muhammad Ahmed - Samira The Messiah Mary’s son is not except a messenger, the messengers had past/expired from before Him, and his mother (was) always very truthful, they were eating the food; look/see how We clarify/explain to them the signs/evidences, then look/see where they be turned away .

Sher Ali ** The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely Messengers like unto him had passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how WE explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away.
**
Yusuf Ali (org.) Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

**Rashad Khalifa ** The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate!

** Hilali & Khan ** The Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)), son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother (Maryam (Mary)) was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)). They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth).
**
Arthur John Arberry** The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him passed away; his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to them; then behold, how they perverted are!
**
Edward Henry Palmer** The Messiah the son of Mary is only a prophet: prophets before him have passed away; and his mother was a confessor; they used both to eat food. - See how we explain to them the signs, yet see how they turn aside!

**George Sale **Christ, the son of Mary, is no more than an apostle; other apostles have preceded him; and his mother was a woman of veracity: They both eat food. Behold, how we declare unto them the signs of God’s unity; and then behold, how they turn aside from the truth.

**John Medows Rodwell ** The Messiah, Son of Mary, is but an Apostle; other Apostles have flourished before him; and his mother was a just person: they both ate food. Behold! how we make clear to them the signs! then behold how they turn aside!

Phew! Colour coding took a lot of time (sniff sniff) :slight_smile:

al-Ma`idah 5:75

Part 2

Popat you are trying to read the verse to fit in with your beliefs.

Christians tacitly attributed divinity to Hz. Maryum (ra) addressing her as ‘Mother of God’.

By combing them both together Allah (swt) is nullifying divinity attributed to both Hz. Isa Ibn Maryum (as) and his mother. Saying like mortals they ate food - Allah (swt) does not eat!

Allah (swt) did not declare him dead. Allah (swt) said: Messengers like him had passed away – here Allah (swt) is nullifying divinity which Christians had attribute to Hz. Isa Ibn Maryum (as). Allah (swt) is telling the Christians just like other messengers had passed away Jesus is not a God, he too, will pass away. It is ONLY Allah (swt) who lives for Forever.

Sorry, **Bigboi **– You are wrong!

Mirza is honorary title both in Persian and Turkish (Mughals – ethnicity of MGAQ) It is not exclusive to Persian.

There is overlap being so close to each other.

*The title itself came from the title emir. Emir, meaning “commander”, -derived from the Semitic root Amr, “command”. Originally simply meaning commander or leader, usually in reference to a group of people. It came to be used as a title of governors or rulers, usually in smaller states
*
*Mirza (Persian: میرزا, Turkish: Mirza, Uzbek: mirzo, Russian: мурза, Circassian: мырзэ), (common variance in Tatar nobility as Morza) is of Persian origin, denoting the rank of a high nobleman or Prince.[1] It is usually translated into English as a royal or imperial Prince of the Blood. It signified male-line descent and relationship to the Imperial Families of Turkey, Persia and later South Asia and was the title borne by members of the highest aristocracies in Tatar states, such as Khanate of Kazan, Khanate of Astrakhan and in the Russian Empire (Under Catherine the Great’s rule the Murzas gained equal rights with the Russian nobility).[2] In fact, Prince Felix Yusupov, the nephew-in-law of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was descended from Abdul Mirza, the first Prince Yusopov.[3]
*
*Mirza was given to imperial prince; a title or part of a name implying relationship to the Turk dynasties like Mughal dynasty (the Imperial House of Timur).[7] But in Indian royal families, the title can be placed both before the name and after it, such as Prince Mirza Mughal and Prince Kamran Mirza. Prince Khusrau Mirza was the grandson of Emperor Babur (Babur Mirza), son of Emperor Jahangir and a brother of Emperor Shah Jahan. Emperor Akbar Shah II was Prince Mirza Akbar before his coronation. Emperor Babur took the imperial title of Padishah on 6 March 1508, before which he used the title Mirza.[8]

In the Indian subcontinent, especially Bengal and Bihar, the Mirzas are also known locally as the variant of Mridha (from Mirdhjah) usually due to the Bengali language not have a ‘z’ sounding alphabet.[9] Mughal dynasty (the Imperial House of Timur "Sarai Mulk Khanam Qutubuddunniya wa Deen Amir Qutubuddin Taimur Baig Sahib-e-kiran).< Rulers of India included:*

Mirza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People claiming to be from Prophet (saw)'s progeny normally attach Syed to their name - After the Wahi MGAQ didn’t.

315

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

You must see the whole verse in its entirety. I am not just commenting on the part where it says that they used to eat. What i'm trying to draw your attention to is that in the verse, Jesus a.s is combined by Allah with the prophets who passed away before Him. It says that Isa a.s was a messenger just like them. Messengers before him have passed away. Now, since Isa a.s was also a messenger like others before him, and since they died, so did Isa a.s. That is why Allah says that He along with his mother used to eat food. Its not about them still eating. Had they still been eating, then Allah needed to say that messengers like him have passed away. There was no need for this statement. This is clear enough that once someone dies, they stop eating. Allah is NOT only denying Jesus a.s as God by saying he used to eat food, but also giving argument that He died like other prophets, and that he used to eat food. On the contrary, Allah never dies , and he does not need food. He is paak from all this.

You are coming up with your own explanation about how He a.s is still eating and is still alive. The whole purpose of this verse is to tell the christians that he died. Your reasoning is very weak !

316

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

Ibn Sadique, thank you for the color coding. Some translation suggest that they ate earthly food. Ok.. so they are no longer eating earthly food? If they are eating earthly food, then He a.s must be on Earth somewhere. You cannot get rid of the fact that in Quran, a book which is a standard to both you and me says that He a.s was a messenger just like them. Just like how they died, so did He. Where is the rocket science in that ?

In one part of verse, Allah is combining Jesus a.s with other prophets. On the second part you are telling me that he a.s is still eating food? If he a.s is , then so is His mother. They are either both dead or both alive. If the eating argument was the only argument Allah needed to present to christians in refutation of Jesus a.s being God, then Allah could have said that they 'eat food'. But no, we see that its in past tense. Something that they used to do.

For Christians, you give them to opportunity with your own explanation and interpretation that He a.s is God, only difference is God does not need food whereas, Jesus need/needed food. So really, how does that even matter? they're both alive. To tell them that He a.s died like other prophets and God never dies is an argument you should present to Christians.

So, again.. my question is >> What was the point of first part of the verse where Allah says Jesus was no more than a messenger. Messengers like him have passed away. Yes, messengers just like him have passed away. You pass away when you no longer require food. He a.s passed away because he does not eat food anymore ..as he used to eat food. What was the point of first part of the verse?

317

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

Peace Mr.Popat

I've already spoken to you about the translation of the term "Qad Khalat" - it means "have come and gone" - it can include those who are still alive and those who have died ...

You have a fixation over food ... and death

I have shown that the Arabic of the term - "Kaana Ya'kulaani" is not perfect - which means it does not include that idea that those who ate are not eating now.

I have also shown that Qad Khalat does not necessarily mean death

I have tried to show that eating is enough for a person not to be called Divine

And it is clear that no where in the Qur'an does it specifically say Isa (AS) has died, and where it could have been used - the example of food was used instead...

Historically we have no body of Isa (AS) ... [But modern claims from your community say otherwise]

Christian reports say he (AS) Ascended physically and our Qur'an say that he (AS) was "taken up"
And our hadith say he will "descend"

318

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

That verse, along with this verse is what i need someone to reply to me which make sense.

[QUOTE]
3-144 And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.
[/QUOTE]

I wrote this before but let me write again.

Muhammad PBUH was only a messenger. Messengers before him have passed away (keep in mind Jesus a.s was right before Muhammad PBUH, about 600 years before, and we find no hadith in explanation of this verse in which Muhammad PBUH cleared it that all messengers before him have passed away except Jesus (as) ) . Now, Allah says messengers passed away in 2 ways. There is no other way of passing away. They either got killed, or they died a natural death. Jesus a.s was 'before' Muhammad PBUH. Since we know Jews did not kill him, how else did he pass away?
Keep in mind, only 2 ways are told here.

319

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

Look at verse 2:134. Here Allah used 'Qad Khalat'

[QUOTE]
Sahih International
That was a nation which has passed on. It will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.
Muhsin Khan
That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do.
Pickthall
Those are a people who have passed away. Theirs is that which they earned, and yours is that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do.
Yusuf Ali
That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case!
Shakir
This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
Dr. Ghali
That is a nation (that) has already passed away; it shall have whatever it earned, and you shall have whatever you have earned, and you shall not be questioned about whatever they were doing.

[/QUOTE]

Also see 2:141 where the term qad khalat has been used.

[QUOTE]
[2:141] Those are a people that have passed away; for them is what they earned, and for you shall be what you earn; and you shall not be questioned as to what they did.
[/QUOTE]

You keep changing your position. First you tell me that Allah can keep humans alive without food. Now when its time to answer about this verse, you tell me that qad khalat means 'come and gone' whereas, ibn sadique and i have presented many many translation of this verse and in all of them it says messengers like him have 'passed away'. Come and gone does not mean one is living. One goes away or leaves this world by dying ! HOw does that favor your stance? :S

I have told you eating along with not dying are 2 things mentioned in the verse. You are neglecting the not dying part. Allah does not die, but prophets do die. Allah does not eat and prophets do eat. Just eating is not enough for a person to not be called divine. Not dying is a divine atribute, which no prophet, no human being shares.

Christians say he was ascended physically up. Which is wrong.
No. Quran does not say he was taken up to God physically. No mention of either body or skies/heaven is mentioned. You are using 1 verse interpreting it your own way, and coming up with conclusion. I'm presenting to you verses after verses disproving your belief.

Hadith says he will descend, not return.

You say where Allah could have used death, he used the example of food. Well, i dont understand why you're not seeing this? Are you ignoring Allah's word? Allah did say clearly that He a.s was a messenger like any other. And messengers like him have passed away. How else do you want Allah to explain it specifically? He explained prophets dying before Muhammad PBUH in 3-144 too. Messengers before Muhammad PBUH have passed away! Do you really think you can explain this by saying because Messengers like him have passed away, Jesus a.s have not ? C'mon buddy.. think !

320

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

Peace Mr.Popat

The term "Qad Khalat" translates as "passed away" or "passed on" or "come and gone" - as can be seen these all contain a literal meaning and metaphoric one ... "qad khalat" can mean "has died" but it can also mean "gone" - And even if it didn't the verse does not say "all" prophets - it merely says "prophets" but for these reasons and others within our tradition we can comfortably say that the Wisdom of Allah (SWT) has kept it clear that Isa (AS) cannot be exclusively said to have died anywhere in scriptures.