“Have you not seen those who befriend a people with whom have the wrath of Allah upon them? They are not of you, nor are you of them. And they knowingly swear upon falsehood.” (Qur’an 58:14)
This article will be addressing points that Nahiem Ajmal (who goes by the name of Mufti Abu Layth) made in regards to the ‘virgin birth of Jesus’. I have to say that for the most part there are not many issues that I would disagree with Nahiem about. Naheim goes by the name “Mufti Abu Layth” because he was previously incarcerated as a convicted felon for ‘extreme porn’ among other charges. So this is a re-branding strategy so that people do not get distracted by his seedy past.
Fair enough. Let’s focus on the arguments and not the person. However, I don’t really feel that this article is a refutation of Nahiem Ajmal actually. That is because to those who pay attention to detail these are not really arguments presented by Naheim Ajmal at all. I want to bypass him and go directly to the individuals that Naheim plucked the arguments from. I will be referencing the artist formerly known as Princ…wait…the ‘Mufti formerly known as Naheim’ as he is the one who brought these ideas to his audience.
After hearing and witnessing some major gaffes in regards to his understanding of the Christian tradition I have come to the understanding that the Christian tradition, it’s beliefs, doctrines, and history is not really his strong point.
It seems to me that Naheim really has his audience fooled. He does a song and dance about how he defends the honour of the Blessed Messenger (saw). So how could he possibly be leading Muslims astray? How could he possibly be a “closet atheist” as some have accused him of?
Well, that is very easy to respond to. It’s simple:
#1 Attack traditional viewpoints that you know Muslims struggle with and weaken their faith in authority.
#2 Never do anything yourself to prove that Islam is actually a divine religion.
#3 Expose your audience to Ex-Muslims and do next to nothing to challenge them on anything. You had a cup of hot tea with an Ex Muslim. Good for you. Good for you.
Another article that I wrote I was in agreement with Nahiem Ajmal on the issue of the ‘Second coming of Jesus’. Yet, even in that article I pointed out a gaffe that Nahiem had made a huge gaffe in regards to the Christian tradition.
For example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHzYu3BKBWE
@40:12 ” The second coming of Jesus is so important in Christianity. It perhaps is the second most important belief in Christianity. It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. If you don’t believe me go do your research. Because…the…believe it or not things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity. Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t accept the virgin birth. The uh St. Paul didn’t even accept things like that. It was only 2-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief. But this, Jesus coming back was so important for Christianity.”
There is much to be desired in the above-mentioned statements.
Nahiem Ajmal has said: “It perhaps is the second most important belief In Christianity.” Not even close! On what basis does brother Nahiem make this claim?
Nahiem Ajmal has said: “ It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. ” What?! Perhaps he misspoke here. I have to believe that he did because it doesn’t even make any sense! How does an established belief in the second coming of Jesus become the bedrock and foundation of Christianity giving rise to it? Christianity would have to be ESTABLISHED FIRST before you could even know what its basic doctrines even are! In other words Jesus has to be credible the first time around before we can even start talking about him returning! I have to believe he misspoke here.
Nahiem Ajmal has said: “Things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity.“
What? Nahiem couldn’t make this claim to any reputable Christian scholar, without being taken to task real quick. The immaculate conception of Christ Jesus, his nature, the nature of his birth, the prophecies concerning his birth are of utmost importance to the Christian faith tradition.
Nahiem Ajmal has said: “Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. “
Which early Christians didn’t believe in the virgin birth? What are your sources? Whom are you relying upon for this information?
Nahiem Ajmal has said: “The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t accept the virgin birth.“
The response to that is: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)
Nahiem Ajmal has said: “ The uh St. Paul didn’t even accept things like that.” This claim is being made on the basis of what? What text? What source? I’d be willing to help him with this one. Perhaps he had Galatians 4:4 or Romans 1:3 he had in mind? We may never know.
Nahiem Ajmal has said: It was only 2-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief.”
My response: Not even close. In fact, it is a belief of Muslims as well.
You can see the evidence for it being a belief of Muslims here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/08/23/muslims-who-dont-believe-in-miracles-the-case-of-the-virgin-birth/
So this is in regards to some general sweeping claims that Nahiem Ajmal has made concerning the Christian faith tradition.
Now, let us turn our attention to his statements concerning the Qur’an and this matter.
So please see what Nahiem has said on the subject here:
So this is the video that Nahiem Ajmal (who goes by Mufti Abu Lath) did that is titled: “Does the Qur’an Mention a Virgin Birth for Jesus?”
So where do we begin with the 20 minutes and 21 seconds that have been allotted to this subject by Ustadh Nahiem? Well, the beginning always seems like a great place to start.
So let me start by saying that I do not think that people are unbelievers for saying that Jesus the son of Mary was conceived through a father and mother. I certainly don’t believe that. I will say this though, something has to be said about combing through the mountain of scholarship that exists across the Shia/Sunni/Ibadi communities and coming up with two names; both of whom I have never heard before in my life.
Now, just because we may not have heard of these people does that mean anything bad? No, it is simply a demonstration of my ignorance and those of us who have never heard of them. However, the absolute, overwhelming, tsunami of scholarship across sectarian lines in Islam is that Jesus the son of Mary was born of a virgin.
The Qur’an is complete. We are not waiting for someone to dig up some extra verses of chapters of the Qur’an that will shed light upon the subject. The Qur’an all of its verses, Arabic grammar, nahu, and balaghah, it has all been laid out. So in the case of the virgin birth of Jesus, I too appeal to the consensus and the overwhelming tsunami of scholarship across sectarian lines. The reason being is that there is really nothing new to weigh in on.
I will simply say, however, that he and all those who hold this view are in error and hold a view that is untenable.
I would also add that it is the theological view of Nahiem in denying miracles that is what drives him to impose this view upon the text. After all, if you are going to deny miracles taking place you are either all in or all out.
What would be interesting as a social experiment would be to find a group of people, who are not Muslims and who are not privy to these discussions in Islam and give them all the relevant text on the subject and after they read the text to ask them the following:
- Based upon the available data in the text you read do you believe that the text teaches that Jesus was born miraculously and/or from a virgin birth?
- Based upon the available data in the text you read do you believe that the text teaches that Mary got married and she conceived Jesus through a natural process?
Nahiem @0:35 makes an astonishing claim in the beginning. He says that the language of the Qur’an is quite interesting and that it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus the son of Mary.
My response: I certainly believe that Jesus is a word proceeding from Allah (swt). I certainly believe that Jesus is a spirit proceeding from Allah (swt).
Nahiem claims that ‘That it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus’ is patently false.
Certainly what our respected brother Nahiem Ajmal has said is factually incorrect.
In fact, I am telling you in all my years and exposure to Islam and Muslims, and an array of opinions and perspectives this is the very first time I am seeing any Muslim raise an objection. So it is quite the opposite of what he claimed.
@0:38 Nahiem says, “For example, Jesus is referred to on more than one occasion in the Qur’an as ‘The word of God’, now that doesn’t resonate with Muslims.“
Again, this is absolute news to me. Yet, it is a curiosity that he chose to render the text as ‘The word of God‘?
@0:56 Nahiem I think he meant to quote Qur’an 3:45 and not 3:43 but he says, “Allah says, when giving glad tidings to Mary that she had received bi kalimatin min’hu (of the word coming from God) us’muhu l-masīḥu ʿīsā ub’nu maryama (the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary).”
Comment: Notice that Nahiem himself translates as “the word coming from God.” I didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.
@1:20 Nahiem continues: “In another verse surah al Nisa 170 (4:170) innamā l-masīḥu ʿīsā ub’nu maryama rasūlu l-lahi wakali (that Jesus is the messenger of God and his Word which he sent down or threw down onto Mary, and the Spirit of God)warūḥun min (once again what are these words. No Muslim really believes this about Jesus. If you want to accept literal no Muslim believes that.”
Comment: Notice that Nahiem himself translates “his word which he sent down.” I didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.
@1:54 Nahiem continues: “You see this is very very like in the Gospel of John that in the beginning there was the you know the the in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.”
My comment: This was actually quite painful to listen to. I mean this as respectfully as I can. Nahiem simply does not have sound knowledge of Christian theology. I have to be brutally honest.
First of all, Nahiem has stated above: @0:38 “For example Jesus is referred to on more than one occasion in the Qur’an as ‘the word of God‘, now that doesn’t resonate with Muslims.”
First of all, he says that the Qur’an says on more than one occasion that Jesus is called, ‘the word of God’ but he himself didn’t give us one example of this. Instead, he himself translated the text as ‘his word sent down’ and ‘word coming from God.’
If Naheim doesn’t know the vast theological difference between the Qur’anic concept of Jesus as ‘a word proceeding from Allah’ (swt) and the Christian idea of the Word being the Logos than he might want to take some time to read up on and research these matters.
“Kalimatullah” is an honorific title given most likely by the Sunni Muslim tradition to Jesus the son of Mary. However, I haven’t personally seen the Qur’an refer to Jesus as ‘The Word of Allah’. I have no idea where Nahiem concocted that from.
The concept put forth in the prologue of the Gospel according to John, the Christian understanding of Jesus as the Logos is understood by the following text:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”—(Colossians 1:15–16)
There is no theological school among Muslims (that I am aware of) that comes even remotely close to such an understanding of Jesus’ role as ‘word’.
In some ways, I do not Nahiem. I honestly believe that his approach to this is due to his very limited training in the Ashari theological school; as well as the fact that he is not grounded in the Christian theological tradition.
I believe my point is proven about his training in the Ashari theological school because he follows up @2:03 with:
“And as Muslims, IF you believe that ‘the word of God’ is uncreated than by that it follows almost ties into Jesus being uncreated.”
This point Nahiem is echoing comes from those of us who do not believe that the Qur’an is uncreated. The Qur’an is not ‘Kalam al-nafsi’, the Qur’an is created.
I do recall a brother sending me a clip of Nahiem claiming that this theological controversy surrounding the Qur’an was a non-issue. However, we can see by the point that he has echoed from those us who do not believe the Qur’an to be eternal, that it is an issue. So simply more ignorance from him. Not knowledge but ignorance.
In fact, I think it would be great if Nahiem cleared up for us what his position is on this issue. Does Nahiem believe that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated or does he believe it is created? He certainly hasn’t been shy from controversy in the past so why not make his stance clear?
Nahiem says, @2:17, “Now Muslims will say oh by ‘the word of God’ here we just mean he was a miracle. No, but that word of God isn’t used for any other prophet.“
I think Nahiem is making a non-argument. I am certainly not running around calling Jesus, ‘the word of God.’
The Holy Spirit.
Nahiem Ajmal continues @2:42 “And than the word ‘The Holy Spirit’ is used with no other prophet. I mean it’s used as revelation coming down with the ‘Holy Spirit’ but otherwise it’s used on three occasions just for Jesus. So you have for example Allah says in Surah al Baqarah verse 87, wa-ayyadnāhu birūḥi l-qudusi (we assisted we gave him assistance, help with the Holy Spirit)”
He continues @3:12 “In Surah Baqarah verse 253, waātaynā ʿīsā ib’na maryama l-bayināti (we gave him the clear signs) wa-ayyadnāhu birūḥi l-qudus (and we helped him with the Holy Spirit).”
He continues @3:23 “In Surah Maidah verse 115 Allah says,” idh qāla l-lahu yāʿīsā ib’na maryama (and when God said oh Jesus the son of Mary) udh’kur niʿ’matī ʿalayka (remember my blessing upon you and your mother) wālidatika idh ayyadttuka birūḥi l-qudusi (when I helped you with the Holy Spirit).”
Nahiem Ajmal continues @ 3:43 “What is this Holy Spirit? This isn’t mentioned with any other prophet generally you don’t get any of the…So there’s allot of rhetoric being used that when it comes to Jesus was generally the kind of Christian rhetoric that is used in the Qur’an perhaps in a sense of building bridges; between the Muslims and the Christian communities and to maybe A) Find an ally in them. And B) maybe for many of them to convert and come closer. Find themselves in greater proximity to Islam and thereby embrace the message.“
My Comments: People should go back and listen to what Nahiem is saying above. In fact, read that in your head and ponder it. That is the exact kind of rhetoric you would expect from a person who sees the Qur’an as the product of the Prophet’s mind.
In other words, rather than the Qur’an being a divine revelation, in which common points of theology are discussed, it is simply a strategy or a device used to win over Christians. I would expect that train of thought from an Orientalist who sees the Qur’an as the product of the Prophet Muhammed’s mind. (saw).
The Virgin Birth
So now we finally come to this section. Nahiem starts off with making some rather bizarre statements.
He says, @6:22 “Now when it comes to the virgin birth, first of all, it’s a different topic that even in the Bible right, now, with the exception of the Gospel of Luke and Matthew, generally the Bible never really referred to in essence the virgin birth. I mean this wasn’t a the early Christians it’s not it’s most likely that the early Christians did not believe in a virgin birth.”
My comments: I thought this statement was bizarre because the central theme of the Bible is about God acting in history to save his people (The Children of Israel). The central theme is lost humanity that needs to be reconciled back with God. Thus the theme of salvation and redemption are central. So I thought it was a bizarre statement to imply that just because the Bible (New Testament) refers the virgin birth only twice we could somehow be dismissive of it. The number of times the virgin birth is mentioned in the New Testament is more than the number of times the term ‘tawhid’ is mentioned in the Qur’an, which is 0. What evidence does Nahiem have to say that the early Christians did not believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary?
He continues @6:59 “and the prophecy that they are referring to in the Old Testament even Biblical scholars highlight that word does not say, ‘betul’ (virgin) it says ‘almah’ (which meant a young girl); as in like a young maiden. Uh which most likely was a virgin, but didn’t have to be. So the same word is used with Solomon and the same word is used on a certain occasion ‘almah’ who had a child. So it’s when of the prophecies that they mentioned in the old testament that they kind of fall back on. But you will see before the Gospels are written, So any of the letters of the Apostles of the letters for example Paul and all of these there is never a mention of a miraculous birth of Jesus. And this comes much later, definitely by the second century, after Jesus. This becomes doctrine.”
My comments: I feel that some Muslims most likely are deeply affected and moved by Western Orientalists. So the thinking here is that whoever wrote the virgin birth narrative wanted to justify this by appealing to text in the Old Testament.
The reliance of this author upon the Greek Septuagint could be a mistranslation error. So the Muslim thinking is, “Wouldn’t be odd if we incorporated into our faith (The Qur’an) something that turned out to be a simple translation error?” I have addressed this line of thought here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/
Second I’m glad to see that Nahiem has accepted that Matthew does mention the virgin birth, whereas before he made a simple error in saying that it didn’t. Nghiem’s line of thought on the writings of Paul is that he didn’t explicitly mention any narrative of the virgin birth and thus he does not believe it. However, this belies a few points.
1) Is it the task for Paul to reacquaint Christians with beliefs they already held?
2) Luke (who did indeed write about the virgin birth) was a companion of Paul.
3) Paul didn’t even mention Mary not a single time ever. So are we to assume that Paul didn’t believe that Mary existed?
There is also something else amiss with Nahiem’s thinking here. We can see that in this video he decries the fact that Muslims hold beliefs that are similar to Christians and yet tries to convince us that Christians themselves didn’t believe in the virgin birth!
The point here is that the text of the Qur’an is not beholden to what 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century Christians believed or did not believe. That was the point of my article above. The Qur’an doesn’t quote from Isaiah.
@8:15 Nhaiem says, “Mary was definitely married and she was most likely definitely not a virgin.“
My comments: What proof do you have Nahiem that Mary was married and was ‘most likely definitely not’ a virgin?
@8:28 Nahiem asserts, “Jesus had brothers and sisters. In fact, the Gospel of Mark and definitely Matthew 13 mention James, Joses, Jude, Simeon, and unnamed sisters were the children of Mary.”
My comments: First of all no where does the text of Matthew assert that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Mary. That is an open challenge to anyone; and not just Nahiem. I believe the text that Naheim had in mind is:
“When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.” (Matthew 13:54-57) I do not know off the top of my head what reference he had in mind for the Gospel of Mark.
Now at this point, I could put my hand on Naheim’s shoulder and say, “The idea that Mary was married to Joseph is a Christian belief? Did you smoke anything when you were in that prison cell?”
So let’s unpack this further. Why do the ‘brothers of Jesus’ have to have come from Mary and not simply from another marriage of Joseph? The text not once calls any of them the children of Mary. That is an assumption.
Second, you have to understand that the name Mary itself was just as common back then as John is among the English.
“Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).“But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25)
Ahmed Deedat used to say, ‘sons by the tons’ now we have ‘Marry’s by the millions’.
Remember the difficulty Christians and Orientalist would give us over the following text in the Qur’an:
“At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” (Qur’an 19:27-28)
Today no one understands that Mary the mother of Jesus is the literal sister of Aaron the brother of Moses.
Lastly, on what consistent basis do we utilize the Gospel accounts when it suits our purposes and dismisses it when it doesn’t?
@9:16 Nahiem says, “Although no verse in the Qur’an says that she had a virgin birth.”
My response: The Qur’an nowhere says that Mary was married to Joseph or anyone. The Qur’an nowhere calls Jesus the son of Joseph or the son of any man. The Qur’an taken as a whole conclusively proves that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.
@10:00 minutes into the video Nahiem mentions the name of only two scholars that state that the birth of Jesus was from a mother and a father.
What would be nice is to have the references or citations from these two respected men so that one could look at what they said. What we did get from Nahiem is the admission that the vast majority of Muslim scholars across time, down through the ages, across sectarian divide all have come to the conclusion that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. However, Nahiem has come to us and said, “well you know I have these two.” Insh’Allah we will take a look at the arguments they put forth shortly.
Now, all we have to go on is what Nahiem relates to the two scholars. However, if what he relates from them is as he says then it is simply dodgy and baseless through and through.
“What these people said that it was a natural birth and that’s not the case. The miracle they highlighted is that when she got married to Joseph that Joseph would abstain and he was not interested in any kind of intimacy. And hence when the angel came and she, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.’ That after that she did conceive. She conceived naturally. Just as Ibrahim (a.s) wife said How can I have a child when the angel came to her and she said I’ve reached menopause I’m an old lady. And they said and the angel said its the decree of God. It doesn’t mean she had a natural somehow kind of non sexual birth. It didn’t mean that. Just as the wife of Zachariah in the Qur’an who says that uh she was barren. She says, ‘How can I have a child.’ And the angel says, It is the decree of God. It doesn’t’ mean she just conceived just like that. She had a husband Zechariah. So these people who have argued this point have gone with just those two prophets before them. They said, well the same thing was said to them. Same thing was said to Mary. Every body accepts Mary had a husband at the time Joseph. The difference however was was that birth a virgin birth. Muslims do not believe she remained a virgin throughout her life.”
Comments: So let us pause here and deal with what brother Nahiem presented to us.
- Nahiem and/or these two scholars tell us that “She got married Joseph and that Joseph would abstain”? Where do we find this statement in the Qur’an or the Sunnah? Remember Nahiem likes to say, “Quran wa Sunnah”, “Quran wa Sunnah.” He talks the talk but he doesn’t walk the walk.
- Nahiem and/or these two scholars tell us that “How can I have a child when the angel came to her and she said I’ve reached menopause I’m an old lady.”
This is the part in the article where I step away from the keyboard and hand it over to my mother or sister. “Dear Nahiem did you just say this woman reached menopause?” “Dear Nahiem did you know that during menopause ovulation ceases and a woman is unable to have children naturally?“
Now, this is the point where we can proclaim a checkmate on Nahiem on three accounts.
The first is that he actually believes in miraculous conception after all. A woman giving birth when she is no longer producing eggs is quite the miracle indeed! Did you ever process that thought in your brain? Probably embarrassed by it and that is why you blocked me when I pressed you about it on your Monday Night’s With Mufti, and in the private message and tagged your name in the relevant post.
Second, since this woman is having miraculous birth without eggs we can no longer discount the virgin birth of Jesus.
The third is that Nahiem admits to angels being sent to break the natural laws. Why? Nothing in the text indicates that these women would have had children otherwise if not that an angel had appeared to them. Why send an angel in the first place? So this concept that Nahiem doesn’t believe that the divine violates the natural laws has been ground to powder. If Allah hadn’t intervened Ibrahim’s wife wouldn’t conceive after menopause, Zechariah’s wife would still be barren, and presumably, Joseph’s libido would be abysmal.
However, because I am not interested in personalities but ideals and concepts we need to continue on with what this guy Nahiem has brought forth.
One last point on what Nahiem said above before we move on. He rendered the Arabic text of Mary’s response as, “And hence when the angel came and she, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.” Now Ustadh I have to say that was clever, clever indeed. Your followers may not have noticed that but I picked up on it. Again, I would like to ask you when you say, “Everybody accepts Mary had a husband at the time Joseph“ and when you say, “Muslims do not believe she remained a virgin throughout her life.”
Where did you get this from? I thought it was, “Quran wa Sunnah” Quran wa Sunnah” or do we take our beliefs from the Christians now? He talks the talk people but he doesn’t walk the walk.
Nahiem continues @11:31 “And here’s another verse. Now this is an interesting one. Now Shaykh Yasir Qadhi who is saying, ‘No we only must go with literal readings of the Qur’an’, in Surah Al-Tahrim verse 12 you have the verse about Mary, wamaryama ib’nata ʿim’rāna allatī aḥṣanat farjahā (And Mary who had been chased and safeguarded her private parts) and ‘ahsana‘ by the way is a verb that is used often in Arabic to do wife safe guarding through marriage. So hence they say somebody is in trouble for adultery were they ‘wahsan’. As Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘Waalmuhsanatu mina alnnisa’. Which is the beginning of the fifth Juz. Is referring to those women who were married. Who are chased through marriage. O.K? ‘nata ʿim’rāna allatī aḥṣanat farjahā fanafakhnā fīhi min rūḥinā’ You see this verse reads, ‘And Maryam the daughter of Imran who safeguarded her genitals her private parts We breathed into that, into it. Says, ‘ fanafakhnā fīhi’ (into her private parts) min rūḥinā (of our spirit) Now that’s in Surat Al Tahrim. As far as I’m aware no Muslim would generally believe that to be literal.”
My response: Yet, it doesn’t dawn on Nahiem, Allah (swt) using quite a literal language to get a point across? This type of language is used by no one else in the Qur’an! This language was not used of either Zecharia’s wife or Ibrahim’s wife. Allah (swt) again and again and again, addresses Jesus as ‘The son of Mary’, Jesus is called ‘A Spirit Proceeding from Him’ and even very strong literal language that shocked Muslim commentators is employed. Are we really to believe as Nahiem wants us to believe so that we as Muslims can believe that Jesus was born to a father named Joseph who is not even mentioned in the Qur’an, or Sunnah so that we can eventually adopt the Christian belief that Joseph is the father of Jesus? That is really quite a stretch.
@15:47 Naheim says, “Yes Allah could have clearly said and Yes Jesus didn’t have a dad but Allah doesn’t say that once in the Qur’an. He does not say that.“
My response: Yes and Allah could have clearly said and Yes Jesus does have a dad. But Allah doesn’t once say that Jesus had a dad. In fact, what does Allah (swt) tell us? Allah (swt) tell us the following:
Call them by the names of their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah. Qur’an 33:5) So why doesn’t Allah (swt) do this when it comes to Jesus if he had a father? Wouldn’t it be more just in the sight of Allah (swt) to call Jesus the son of (X) rather than Jesus the son of Mary? Doesn’t’ this peak your interest at all Naheim? You don’t find it a bit odd that Allah (swt) calls Jesus the son of Mary over and over and over again?
With all due respect, you have resorted to incorporating Christian beliefs into Islam! Yes! There is no mention of Joseph being the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus in the Qur’an. There is no mention from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about Joseph being the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus from the lips of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
On what consistent basis do you tell us to guard against the idea of the second coming of Jesus as a belief that ‘crept into Islam’ when you have stormed the front gate with this? On what consistent basis can you do this?
@16:18 Naheim is going to bring us the arguments of the two scholars he mentioned earlier. These supposedly rock-solid arguments against the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. They are supposed to be arguments that Jesus was born of a natural father. So let us have at it.
And Zechariah and John and Jesus and Elias – and all were of the righteous. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot – and all of them We preferred over the worlds. And some among their fathers and their descendants and their brothers – and We chose them and We guided them to a straight path. (Qur’an 6:85-87)
Comments: This is simply embarrassing. If these are the kind of arguments that Naheim is going to bring to the table than I think we are done here. So for those who may not follow the argument, basically the line of thinking here is that it mentions a whole grouping of Prophets and mentions in this context their fathers. So somehow Naheim and his scholars use this to advocate that all the prophets had fathers. I’ll give you my understanding of this verse and I’ll show you why my understanding floats and Naheim’s understanding sinks. My understanding is that when it says, “their fathers and their descendants and their brothers” that this doesn’t mean that all of the prophets had fathers, and children and brothers. My understanding is that this verse addresses those who did have ‘fathers, descendants and brothers’. Whereas if Naheim is going to be consistent and assert that ‘their fathers’ means ‘they all had fathers’ than the text that reads ‘their descendants’ if we are to be consistent must mean ‘they all had descendants.’ This would make Naheim the first Muslim to my knowledge to assert that John the Baptist and Jesus had children. That verse no more ‘weighs in on the side’ that Jesus had a father than it does ‘weigh in on the side’ that Jesus had children.
@17:40 Naheim brings the other argument that these scholars use. Naheim thinks that this is a very ‘powerful verse’ that they use!
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife or a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)
A whole post dedicated to this “powerful verse” right here: https://primaquran.com/2019/10/31/putting-to-bed-the-big-verse-against-the-virgin-birth/
First I find it interesting that Naheim has decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ or a ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ it is not used in this context. Whereas I would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas Ustadh Naheim focuses on the term ‘wife’.
Naheim and his two scholars’ understanding of this verse is both theologically unsound and outright egregious. The way they understand the text we either have to choose between a Creator that is impotent (May Allah pardon us) or a Creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).
The questions that Naheim and his scholars would need to address are:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife? If you understand it the way that Naheim and his two scholars do, it makes Allah (swt) plead that he would need to have a wife. On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Would they be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon their logic? In other words do they or do they not find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son? So could Allah (swt) have a wife or a son? (May Allah pardon us).
Why do they ( Naheim) and his two scholars assert that Allah (swt) would need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
@19:26 Naheim makes what has to be the most incoherent statement that I am aware of since making You-Tube videos. “God doesn’t need to. God could just make a child without having a female. That’s an argument, that’s an argument against God, for using that as an argument. The only way that verse can make sense is if all births follow a natural law of order.”
How about we actually look at the whole verse, and not just a section of the verse? Why not look at the whole verse? Is that fair?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.”(Qur’an 6:101)
First of all Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Does Naheim and/or his two scholars believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
Could Naheim and/or his two scholars tell us what natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality?
The verse all says, “He created all things.” In other words, why do people seek our companionship/friendship/associates and peers? Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11) If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’. It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings. It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child)
Naheim is adamant that Allah (swt) is showing them their reasoning.
Naheim is focused on the issue of ‘walad’ whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’ a companion to begin with!
She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?” (Qur’an 19:20)
So according to Naheim and his select scholars, they understand this as Mary saying, “But I’ll have a child when I get pregnant by my husband“.
“How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife or a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)
So according to Naheim and his two scholars, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife I could have a child.” Which is simply theologically unsound. It’s theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
If anything in this article is good and beneficial all praise be to Allah (swt). If there are any mistakes then surely this is from me. May Allah (swt) continue to guide and bless us. We seek the help of Allah (swt) and the help of Allah (swt) is sought.