Re: Hazrat Isa A.S.
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]
Self-righteousness par excellence…
No we didn’t deny that certain terms could have multiple meanings. Take the example of ‘Tawaffee’. We are fine with ‘taking’ or ‘taking fully’. It was you who want to stick to the so called literal meanings i.e., ‘Taking up’. I asked you to show me an unbiased source that shows this meaning. You didn’t. I am fine with ‘taking fully’ but where does this ‘Up’ came from? It is you who want your words to be taken as is unsubstantiated. It were us who showed you evidence from Quran and otherwise to support the notion that when Allah does ‘Tawaffee’ of a person, it is ‘Qabz-e-roh’ and default meaning is death. Evidence of Quran, hadith, dictionary has been presented before you. You want to attribute totally unique meanings for the case of Jesus (as) and you admit to this fact. We simply cannot digest it with our eyes closed considering it to be the opinion of majority.
Perhaps, I missed it. Please point to a few posts where you did what you expressed above and were not cooking theories.
Ahmadis are NOT muta’zilis. I can assure you that. Question to you: was the issue of life and death of Jesus(as) was brought into discussion during the debate you pointed out? I am unaware of this side so need an honest answer from you. Yes you are the people of majority but there is a difference between view of majority and having consensus. That is what I pointed out in my post. Moreover, muta’zilis are not alone in believing that Jesus(as) has died.
On one hand you say that you haven’t made any absolute claims while you stated that “I believe that Isa (AS) to be alive as per Qur'an and Sunnah and the consensus of the Muslims” and then say that “this does not mean that I can show you "proof that he has not died". What sort of twisted thinking is this?
Quran does show us that Jesus (as) has died and it has been pointed out to you but you keep on insisting that unless Quran says that ‘O believers, Jesus indeed has died’, you will not believe it. And on top of that ‘maut’ has to be used for his death not any other word. [Should I show you that ‘maut’ has also been used for sleep as well but there is no evidence of Tawaffee being used for physical lifting when applied to a person]. It is not very different from those who said unless we see Allah with our own eyes we will not believe in Him since majprity doesn’t believe in Him.
Peace kchughtai
Further qualification to my statement, that since tawaffee has been used only for Isa (as) in the Qur'an, in all cases the time this happens also never infers our past. It is either the future of Isa (as) in the time around the crucifixion, or the past of the time around the Day of Judgement.
So even if we agree to the term death ... Then the language does now allow us to conclude it has happened already, but merely that it could have happened. At least admit this much.
And just as I said to brahmachari99 let's look at each case of tawaffee and see what is the "doer" and what is the "object" around the verb. And my ongoing question has been since the Qur'an uses this term and in a few places makes the object the soul, why or by what principle does it suggest that that must be the only way it should be used?
If I ever find examples of other usage I'll let you know about it, at the moment I don't, but from what our scholars say because of the way this act is used as rebuttal of the claims to his being killed, since this word is used like it has been a promise to him, this promise is associated to how the Messiah shall not be harmed, the power of Allah is invoked to suggest that what happened is something remarkable, other places in the Qur'an suggest that he (as) will be alive in old age, other places again suggest that all need to believe in Isa (as) before he dies, plenty of references suggesting his return, the core belief that humans die once, the legacy of the story of Isa (as) ... are for us evidence that he is alive and hence taken out of this existence to be put into another.
We use our understandings as per belief of mi'raj, and story of Idris (as) , etc to build this picture of compatibility to the story of Isa (as) .
You must admit that what we believe is NOT baseless, to suggest this is a lie. You must also admit that the death of Isa(as) is never expressed unambiguously - for the wisdom of God, perhaps that certain signs of the hour occur, i.e. the imposters. And hence the title Wise is also used in the verses around the tawaffee.
But I do not claim that this is 'fact', because 'fact' by definition is unambiguous, I claim belief in this version however without any doubt. It is a part of my belief system. If only you studied logic would know what I mean by such things.
Lastly you seem obsessed at dismantling the orthodox belief, but do not propose what this is to be replaced by ... You say that mi'raj could not have happened due to some problems that seem to evade reality for you, you call them fairy tales, however, I can dig up similar artefacts from your beliefs that would be considered fairy tales by your standards, so I ask why the double standards? Why, must you attempt to dismantle the system of another, when you have less than it as replacement? And if you have more to offer ... Then do so, offer it and see if we can't find the problems in it, that you so love to find in ours.
