I am not sure I understand the last part about "Alaqa" etc. What is that?
I thought all human beings are made out of dust (its mentioned that man is made of dust, and thats where he will end up). The focus of the ayat, as I had suggested before, and you just reiterated, is to emphasize on the status of Jesus (Peace be upon him) as a human being and as a messanger of God. Not necessarily to compare the methods of birth for the two (Adam and Jesus). This becomes all the more clear, when you read the context of the ayat, where it is talking about the events leading up to Jesus' last days, and is not talking about Adam (Peace be upon him) as such.
Though while I was thinking about it later, the mainstream muslim belief, that both men were born without a father - Adam being the first human, and Jesus through an immaculate conception - does unite them on that one point. So, I can see your point as well, on why you brought that ayat into this discussion.
[40:68] He it is Who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clot; then He brings you forth as a child; then He lets you grow, so that you attain your full strength; and afterward become old - though some among you are caused to die before - and that you may reach a term appointed and that you may learn wisdom.
is it not the case with all mankind? Are we not all created from that same dust?
“Adam primarily stands for man, i.e., the sons of Adam generally. Jesus is thus declared to be like other mortals who have all been created from dust (40:68), and so there can be no Divinity about him. If, however, the word “Adam” be taken to refer to the progenitor of the human race, then the verse would be taken to point to the resemblance between Jesus and Adam in being born without the agency of a male parent. In this case, the fact that Jesus had a mother would not affect the likeness which, as stated above, need not be complete in all respects.”
I think you are confusing Quranic diction of Adam and Bani Adam
for all the humans, Quran addresses them as Insaan as Yaa Aiyohal insaan or khalaq al insaana malam ya’lam and many others.
Now then again, it is the mindset to take the Quran as figuratively than literally.
Faisal: Quran only talks about the creation of Adam as from clay (dust) and for all other humans as trooper mentioned the wrong ayah number, it is ayah** 67** of surah 40 … it tells us that first human (Adam) was created from dust but then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot
SO basically what i have gathered so far....according to islam......adam indeed was the first man on earth...in that case there WAS incest in the form that Basit mentioned, and it was also allowed and the need of the time.and if evolution is how creation took place then there was probably no incest.
I am confused. Why do people establish an opinion before hand and try to make the quran fit their opinion. Why not just accept what the Quran says. Incest is outlawed. End of discussion. Hazrat Adam married a woman who was not a relation. The children did not marry each other so how can there be incest?
If the quran does not state otherwise, Incest is haram and will always be haram. To play with the Quran to fiit you own sick needs is repulsive.
Firstly your post is based on assumption and not fact and you have adopted an attitude where you want to be proven wrong when it is not humanly possible for us to prove you wrong. Nobody knows what happened so far back. You will have theories abound and the like. At the end of the day incest has been haram since the days of Judaism. It is haram till now, so at the time of Hazrat Adam one can infer that it was haram then as well.
my post is based on assumption? and i guess your statements that condone blind faith in something is based on facts???
if u care so much about facts then u should be the first to believe in evolution becuz there are lots of facts that prove evolution of mankind.
and my post is based on logically trying to understand how human population increased from two people who were supposedly the first. and ill say it the last time....if they were the first then there had to be incest. as u might have read....some people even gave me a logical explanation for it...rather than deem anything u dont understand as pathetic please try and be a little more open minded.
in muslims, religion allows marraige between cousin siblings. in hindu and sikhs, it is not allowed. it is scintifically proved that if dormant and recessive genes of same clan clashes, offspring in the subsequent generation may be defective.
Navtech if you donate your liver or kidney to someone you are now their brother or sister? Why do all the crazies end up in the religion forum?
Evolution is full of potholes. You can start that topic in a new thread. Evolution versus Creationist is one of my favorite discussions. So please do start a thread.
Now back at the subject at hand. You infer it was incest because you do not concieve of anything else being possible correct? We are gonna take this slow, just for my benefit how is that?
if adam and eve were the first and evolution does not hold....then no i dont see any other way of multiplying other than incest.....unless humans just popped up elsewhere too.....
Why do all the crazies end up in the religion forum?