The evidence to reject the virgin birth of Jesus.

18 responses to “The evidence to reject the virgin birth of Jesus.”

1. Abu Talhah

   August 30, 2019 at 1:02 pm

   It’s really too had that this same Mufti insists that the so-called “Mu`tazilah” (Ahl al-Tawhīd wa al-`Adl) are in fact extremists. Oh well. He just makes it clear how inadequate the Dār al-`Ulūm theological curriculum is.

   Reply
   • Abu Talhah

     August 30, 2019 at 1:02 pm

     *bad

     Reply
   • 'abdullah

     September 1, 2019 at 9:25 pm

     Of course they’re extremists, one of the Mu’tazilah’s key talking points was about who is and how one becomes a kafir, which is politically incorrect and calling people apostates is a definite no-no, not to mention amr bil-ma’ruf in a secular democratic society! In fact all fuqahaa of the past are extremists by today’s standards which would include all the Mu’tazila figures that were active in the Sunni schools of fiqh. The theological extremism of the Mu’tazili is just a bonus.

     Reply
     • Abu Talhah

       September 2, 2019 at 12:17 am

       I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. Just gonna leave it at that…
2. Agnostic is an Idiot

   December 27, 2020 at 4:36 am

   Assalamu Alaykum brother Prima Quran

   The Ebionites, which were a group of early Jewish Christians, were said to have denied the Virgin Birth of Prophet ‘Isa (AS). This was something they were accused of denying, by some early Christian historians. Who knows if its true.

   Just wanted to mention that , thats all.

   This Wikipedia article has a list of Christian thinkers who either doubted or denied the virgin birth:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_virgin_birth_of_Jesus#:~:text=Denial%20of%20the%20virgin%20birth%20of%20Jesus%20is%20found%20among,literal%20son%20of%20human%20parents.

   Alhamdulillah, Allah the Almighty, clarified the truth for us in the Quran and confirmed the virgin birth of Isa ibn Maryam (AS)

   Reply
   • primaquran

     December 27, 2023 at 7:55 am

     Walakum salaam wr wb, I did not see this comment before. Jazka’Allahu khayran for this information that I was not aware of before.

     May Allah (swt) suffice us and increase us in good.

     Reply
3. Imran khan

   December 27, 2023 at 6:22 am

   This was such a dumb read i wish i could have my time back. You only showed your own foolishness with this childish nonsense.

   Reply
   • primaquran

     December 27, 2023 at 7:51 am

     First Al hamdulillah I want to thank you for your comment. I remembered a teacher of mine disagreeing with me using the real name of Mufti Abu Layth and my teacher suggested to me that those who addressed him as “Naheim” were people antagonistic towards him and such is un becoming of a Muslim.

     I immediately went through my articles and made the name change over to Mufti Abu Layth so it seems there is this one (perhaps others) I need to rectify.

     So Allah (swt) reward you for that reminder.

     Secondly, there are different levels of engagement with something. For me if I find something is not worth my time at all I would simply ignore it altogether.

     I would not create an account and than take more of my time (that I claim is already wasted) and than post a comment.

     Next, it is unclear to whom the comment is directed. I am speaking of: “You only showed your own foolishness with this childish nonsense.”

     Next, do understand that the concept of ‘wasting time’ is not something befitting of a Muslim or anyone who takes matters of truth seriously.

     If anything you invested time learning about your din (an meritorious act of worship).

     So in reading the article you found Mufti Abu Layth’s arguments to be foolish and childish nonsense or you have found my response to his arguments to be foolish and childish nonsense. So, in reading it, either way the position you had on the matter was weakened or further fortified, depending upon who you felt was being foolish an childish.

     I will tell you this there will be no further comments from you on this blog. Your very comment (the one you decided to spend your time on) added nothing to the discourse and was ungallant.

     Good day to you sir.

     Reply
4. coryjaw

   January 4, 2024 at 10:22 am

   Salam and fair critique (despite my personal disagreement). Though with all due respect, I think you’re totally misunderstanding the Mufti’s argument regarding Allah having a consort. He doesn’t seem to be suggesting in anyway that Allah might have a one, but rather seems to understand the verse (I believe correctly) as suggesting that those who say God has offspring, speak of God as they would a human, for humans have offspring, and Allah has made it that humans have offspring only with companions/mates, and Allah has no companion. So, Allah would be suggesting that this is how offspring are produced as a rule. A virgin Maryam would be an extreme exception to that rule, if taken as a historical figure who gave birth to Aīsā without any consort/mate. The latter of which is definitely a valid inference for one who takes this approach to the Quran, though I do believe for a modern person who had no influence of the established Christian or Muslim tradition, the same verses which are read as suggesting virgin birth by “traditionalists”, such as the ruhh of Allah coming to Maryam in the form of an adult man, followed by Allah breathing Their ruhh into Maryam’s womb, can also be taken metaphorically, and not require Allah to change the laws of nature for an event that would only be reported, and never seen or attested to by any witness but Maryam, who never Allah never reports as attesting to this (saying: Allah has given me a chilf without the need of conjugal relations with a man, or without the need of a companion) in the Quran. Perhaps it’s no miracle, and still didn’t require a conjugal relationship. I wouldn’t know where to start there, but what’s most interesting to me, is that this is considered miraculous for people who don’t suggest any purpose to the miracle, which would appear to have a reason beyond just reading it in a text, since again, none could attest to it beside Maryam. I’m still pondering what the potential sibling of the purposed miracle would be, though minus the Virgin birth, it would appear that the story is primarily concerned with the humans of Aīsā, said to “be” and it was, l as other humans and aside from that the story appears to break away from some of the patriarchal norms of that society. Allahu a’alim.

   Reply
   • primaquran

     January 4, 2024 at 11:29 am

     Salam and thank you for your comments.

     “can also be taken metaphorically, and not require Allah to change the laws of nature for an event that would only be reported, and never seen or attested to by any witness but Maryam.”

     This is the real heart of the issue isn’t it? We wouldn’t have to use these elaborate interpretative measures if one did not approach the text with these preconceived ideas that miracles contravene the supposed “Laws” of nature. That in and of itself is a different topic.

     Although, I have acknowledged it is the world view that fuels this mis-understanding.

     What this article was hyper focused on was the very arguments themselves.

     I was recently watching a spat (back and forth) online between a Sunni Muslim and a member of the Ahmadi community.

     There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue of the Virgin Birth of Jesus (as).

     The interesting thing about the Ahmadi community (and to their credit) is that they recognize what the plan text says. However, given that they have the same view about miracles some how contradicting the “laws of nature” they have taken quite a different approach.

     https://www.alhakam.org/the-virgin-birth-scientific-plausibility/
     They basically argue that Mary (as) was a Hermaphrodite (May Allah forgive us and guide us).

     Even though this has not been demonstrated or recorded as of yet, for them it remains in the category of what is possible in the “laws of nature.”

     “So, Allah would be suggesting that this is how offspring are produced as a rule.”

     Again, this is what I have seen as an extremely weak argument. I understand what a person is trying to establish by it and is that very reasoning I find it problematic.
     It goes with out saying I have already listen the reasons why.

     As I also stated it would be a very interesting experiment to take people who have no knowledge of Islam or Christianity and even remove the names Mary, Jesus and replace the names with other names and have them read the text
     and tell us what they thought happened. The jury is still out on that one.

     ” but what’s most interesting to me, is that this is considered miraculous for people who don’t suggest any purpose to the miracle.”

     Indeed it is odd to make him as “a sign unto mankind” -just some guy who had a regular birth.
     So at the end at least you offer (or rather you follow the thoughts of those who preceded you) the following:
     ” l as other humans and aside from that the story appears to break away from some of the patriarchal norms of that society.”

     Here all these centuries have passed and we don’t find these insights. It looks more like a thesis paper written by a left leaning feminist from a liberal arts college in 1973.

     It also reminds one of the kind of arguments that hyper skeptics and atheist use. “What is the purpose in having Muhammed (saw) receive revelation away from everyone in a cave.”

     So in the article as stated I stayed hyper focused on the arguments themselves.

     Though, there are ancillary issues/questions that is acknowledged.

     Thank you for your contribution.

     Reply
     • coryjaw

       January 4, 2024 at 6:56 pm

       PS

       Since politics some how come into the discussion, anti-intellectualism is a trademark of reactionaries.
     • primaquran

       January 4, 2024 at 7:21 pm

       agree and disagree

       I agree that simply reacting to something is the trade mark of being anti-intellectual.
       However, reacting to something in and of itself is not anti-intellectual.

       and as stated in my previous reply (which you may not have read yet) is that I find being dishonest with one’s self to be anti-intellectual.

       There are interpretations that are acceptable no doubt about it. However, how far we take certain interpretations I think can reach conclusions that shy away from being honest with oneself and the text.

       I’ll give an example in relation to Christianity.

       So in Christianity we are told in the text that Jesus (as) is betrayed by Judas than he goes and hangs himself.

       We are also told in another text that Judas falls headlong off a cliff and his guts burst open and he dies.

       So Christians have tried to save this problem by bringing about stories and scenarios that are not even in the text, Strained interpretations to save the text.

       Their proposal?

       That Judas hung himself and the rope snapped and he fell and than his guts burst open in the field.

       Now I feel if I wanted to being intellectually dishonest with myself and just carry on with the idea of Biblical inerrancy I would accept such a strained interpretation but at the cost of intellectual honesty.

       Or, I could say maybe The Testament has some over arching good teachings and the message of Christ is preserved but it has some very human finger prints on it.

       So for me coryjaw it is not about what I am or am not prepared to believe. I want to look at the sources, and I want to scrutinize those sources and see what is it saying/not saying.

       So if the Qur’an says Allah (swt) has a hand and I can see that else where in the text that hand is used to mean power, possession, strength than it is (for me) a consistent interpretation. One does not have to stretch the imagination.

       But if someone wanted to give an interpretation to say that fighting in the Qur’an is a metaphor for vigorous and lively debate/discussion this is where I loose interest in such conversations.

       I’ll take the charge of anti-intellectual all day, if in return I have to be anti-truthful and dishonest with myself.
5. coryjaw

   January 4, 2024 at 6:49 pm

   Salam, and thanks for the response!

   I don’t actually consider it to be an issue that people take their time and reflect on the Quran beyond the obvious or literal, but in this case, it doesn’t require a lot of reflection, as the point of the story (imo) isn’t the supposed virgin birth, which as I already suggested, isn’t the most obvious reason considering that people aren’t typically born of virgins. So the miracle would require the extra thought, which again, isn’t a problem inherently. “Natural law”, as in the manner in which God typically manifests our reality, is part of God’s ayat that teach us. Consider that everyone who comes to the Quran, comes with their own preconceived notions, either from culture or previous faiths ect, and this is no problem either. Different Muslims, left to their own devices comes to different conclusions and understandings. It’s only a problem when they became violently antagonistic to one another, and to non-Muslims imo.

   I considered the “hermaphrodite” position some Ahmadis take, though while this intersex condition in other species has been shown to produce offspring, it has never been recorded by a medical professional amongst humans, so once again, would make Maryam the extreme exception.

   What is your interpretation of the verse about God having a consort? And I agree that would be a great experiment, though generally when things are not stated, and we assume something which we all assume (human offspring are produced from conjugal relations), I think you’d be surprised if you think a virgin birth is the most obvious reading. There are also levels of understanding amongst people, related to their own ability to pick up on thematic elements and such. There are parables throughout the Quran. They all require reflection, and some can be taken literally and offer less information that way. All do respect brother, but I think you’re taking an anti-intellectual approach to the text based on your own worldview. Even you though as a Muslims, must at least except that their could be more to this text, than what you already assume. I am curious as to what argument, in what papers you’re referring to, and from what liberal arts college (A liberal arts college or liberal arts institution of higher education is a college with an emphasis on undergraduate study in liberal arts and general sciences). I’d like to read it.

   Reply
   • primaquran

     January 4, 2024 at 7:06 pm

     “Salam, and thanks for the response!”

     Salam thank you for your thoughts.

     “It’s only a problem when they became violently antagonistic to one another, and to non-Muslims imo.”

     Agreed and even when discussing some may not realize it but the seeds of violence start with our own ego and taking cheap shots at each other. May Allah protect us.

     “I think you’d be surprised if you think a virgin birth is the most obvious reading.”

     Well it looks like we have three positions here.
     1) That this is a virgin birth.
     2) That this is a virgin birth but it can be reconciled with an understanding of “natural laws.”
     3) The concept of a virgin birth cannot be reconciled with “natural laws” therefore interpretative measures are applied.

     So what is highly interesting is that position 2 understand the obvious reading of the text. So they have taken a different route than position 3.

     Again, I would be very interested in seeing the suggested experiment conducted. I am quite intrigued by it.

     I think you may not have caught my point about the statement concerning the liberal arts college so I will leave it as is.

     “I already suggested, isn’t the most obvious reason considering that people aren’t typically born of virgins.”

     Well most people who hold faith traditions actually do believe in miracles and they do not believe that they violate some “natural laws” so it is not surprising at all that they walk away with the understanding of what the text obviously state.

     This is why as I pointed out every one of the arguments brought forward by Mufti Abu Layth (actually the ones he resurrected by the Indian scholars he took from) are easily refuted.

     In fact there are several statements put forward by Mufti Abu Layth where he has given no proof for them at all.

     So the last to hold on to is:

     “Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)

     https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/does-allah-need-a-wife-to-have-a-son/

     As regards who or what is anti-intellectual that is subjective. I find not being honest with one’s self anti-intellectual.

     “What is your interpretation of the verse about God having a consort?”

     As regards how we understand the verse:

     https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/does-allah-need-a-wife-to-have-a-son/

     Kind regards.

     Reply
     • coryjaw

       January 5, 2024 at 2:00 am

       Salam, I appreciate the prompt response, though it seems at this point we might as well be DMing.

       “Agreed and even when discussing some may not realize it but the seeds of violence start with our own ego and taking cheap shots at each other. May Allah protect us.”

       Very true.

       “Well it looks like we have three positions here.
       1) That this is a virgin birth.
       2) That this is a virgin birth but it can be reconciled with an understanding of “natural laws.”
       3) The concept of a virgin birth cannot be reconciled with “natural laws” therefore interpretative measures are applied.”

       I’d put the first two in one category. Also, imo, the third option isn’t necessary. Though, if there was a literal virgin birth, I think there would be a purpose/meaning, which would be required. Basically an explanation for why God chose such a specific exception.

       “I think you may not have caught my point about the statement concerning the liberal arts college so I will leave it as is.”

       I don’t think I did, no. I was asking for an example of it, because what you said seemed to be implying that what I said sounds like something produced at that time (what was it 1973? Lol) in that type of college (“liberal arts”? I was a Philosophy major). But I didn’t produce an argument, so I’m asking you essentially what you’re trying to say. Feel free to leave it there though….

       “Well most people who hold faith traditions actually do believe in miracles and they do not believe that they violate some “natural laws” so it is not surprising at all that they walk away with the understanding of what the text obviously state.”

       To be clear, I never said it violated a natural law. Though it would be an extreme exception to the rule (that humans produce offspring from intercourse as God designed). Though I would actually assume that there was a natural explanation even for the “miracle”. There is more to a miracle than that it appears out of the typical natural order, at least in my understanding. God creates “nature” as God pleases, and God does nothing without reason. Therefore, I would assume there is a specific purpose and meaning we are meant to take from a presupposed “miracle”. Though I think this is completely irrelevant to what people assume is the “obvious” reading of the text. We’re talking specifically about the “virgin birth”. Even if you believe that Allah arbitrarily changes the rules of nature at whim (I personally have a different notion of what a miracle is), this doesn’t mean you believe this is what occurred with Maryam. If the Quran clearly stated “‘Aīsā had no father” this would be a different discussion. There are other more obvious miracles in the Qur’an. You can accept the existence of the miracles generally, while not agreeing that there was a virgin birth.

       Verse 6:101 is interesting because taken on its own, it sounds like a direct refutation of Christian theology, though following 6:100 I realized it could also be directed at the theology of polytheistic idolaters. In the latter example it could be a matter of refuting the notion of “divine consorts”, though specifically in regards to Christians (many “traditionalists” seem to include Christian theology, which I’m fine with), the birth of Jesus is still from a human woman, and humans have mates. So this is the way I would assume you’d interpret the verse as well, which makes it clear to me at least, what Mufti Abu Layth is arguing. Regardless of whether or not you agree that this refutes the virgin birth. Obviously God doesn’t need a consort to create as perhaps pagan theology suggests. God created the universe from nothing, which btw, is an example of a miracle in my understanding.

       “As regards who or what is anti-intellectual that is subjective. I find not being honest with one’s self anti-intellectual.”

       Anti-intellectual generally means hostility and/or mistrust of the intellect or intellectuals. This is the broadest meaning. To be more specific, I’m referring to your description of my “argument”, in political terms. Your use of buzz words like “leftist”, “feminist” and “liberal”, which are a common form of dismissal used by reactionaries. The term “reactionary” here is meant politically, as in returning to a past harmony, or preserving “tradition” against “new ideas”. I apologize for the “jargon”, but I don’t know a better word to describe the general ideological node. Usually the target of reactionaries is what’s unfamiliar, or apparently “foreign” (usually it’s actually more complicated) and there’s a tendency to restrict speculation, and deeper thinking. For most intellectuals, deeper thinking isn’t an “issue”. On the other hand, a vigorous intellectual engagement, at least in my experience, requires one to look deeper at a subject, and in the case of a text, that means looking for metaphors, themes, parts of speech ect, with the goal of gaining new insights, which wouldn’t be “obvious”. In my experience, the “obvious” is usually a pre-existing bias (ideology). While a good intellectual minds their own biases, anti-intellectuals often are completely oblivious of ideology, and assume their view is the default understanding. I like to think our little interaction suggests there’s hope for intellectual discourse. And I’ll definitely take a gander at your link.
     • primaquran

       January 5, 2024 at 4:51 am

       “Salam, I appreciate the prompt response, though it seems at this point we might as well be DMing.”

       Salam. True, but those who read the comments would miss out on other perspectives that enrich us all.
       It also seems that you are invested enough in this topic that you keep engaged so Al hamdulillah.

       When looking at the categories again I would re-word this so as not to superimpose the views of category a and b upon category c

       I would put it as such:

       1) That this is a virgin birth.
       2) That this is a virgin birth but it can be reconciled with an understanding of “natural laws.”
       3) Their is no virgin birth at all.

       I still find it very fascinating that position 1 and 2 have arrived to the same conclusions.
       This is fascinating considering that positions 2 and 3 share the same perspective of about miracles supposedly violating “natural laws.”

       So in this trialogue -rather dialogue. Position 1 and position 3 are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
       Position 2 did not see what position 3 saw when reading the text. Simply intriguing.

       “I think there would be a purpose/meaning, which would be required. Basically an explanation for why God chose such a specific exception.”

       He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ ” (Qur’an 19:21)

       This says he is a sign unto men. I would tend to think that if he was some “supposed exception” to the rule that in and of itself would
       indicate making him as an “ayat”. or, being miracle -in the way that categories 2 and 3 would not find acceptable.

       “don’t think I did, no. I was asking for an example of it, because what you said seemed to be implying that what I said sounds like something produced at that time (what was it 1973? Lol) in that type of college (“liberal arts”? I was a Philosophy major). But I didn’t produce an argument, so I’m asking you essentially what you’re trying to say. Feel free to leave it there though….”

       Sure. So initially you seem to offer what you feel is a suitable understanding of “a sign unto men.” with the following statement:

       “though minus the Virgin birth, it would appear that the story is primarily concerned with the humans of Aīsā, said to “be” and it was, l as other humans and aside from that the story appears to break away from some of the patriarchal norms of that society. Allahu a’alim.”

       So what really caught my eye was: “the story appears to break away from some of the patriarchal norms of that society.”

       So I gleaned from this you were offering your explanation of Qur’an 19:21. Thus, I made my comment because I am totally unaware of this commentary in any of the early Christian/Islamic sources. Now that does not mean any exist I would just be very interested in any that you would have from the early Christian and Islamic communities that would be in line with this view.

       In fact, something else I found interesting that Mufti Abu Layth does acknowledge in his build up of the actual discussion is that there is allot of charged up language surrounding Jesus (as) that seems really unnecessary and even redundant if we are to walk away with the impression that: “Oh that was just Mary (as) ya know challenging the Patriarchy.”

       “Even if you believe that Allah arbitrarily changes the rules of nature at whim (I personally have a different notion of what a miracle is), this.”

       It seems we keep going in the direction of ancillary issues and I like to stay very focused on the arguments that were given to refute the position that Jesus (as) was born of a virgin birth.

       I am also a bit troubled by language that I feel is reactionary such as:

       “Even if you believe that Allah arbitrarily changes the rules of nature at whim.”
       I usually become disinterested in an exchange when I feel my position is being straw manned. However, I want to be more charitable lately as I really do not know how others think; and this may be just your way of interacting with another’s position.

       To be clear to your good-self or anyone else reading the exchange: Neither I or those of us who do believe in miracles believe that they violate the supposed “rules of nature.”

       So I hope in the future even if you disagree with us on that that can be fairly represented.
       To mischaracterize what the other side believes Allah (swt) does thinks on a “whim” seems a bit of a poke than any serious attempt at engagement. Again, I totally understand where your coming from as well as the conclusion you arrive at. Yet, to characterize the other side as such doesn’t seem serious.

       Again, in this particular article I stay hyper fixated on the arguments and statements given by Mufti Abu Layth himself.

       Examples being:

       “@8:15 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Mary was definitely married and she was most likely definitely not a virgin.”

       Do you coryjaw know where he gleaned this from?

       Mufti Abu Layth and/or these two scholars tell us that “She got married to Joseph and that Joseph would abstain” Where do we find this statement in the Qur’an or the Sunnah? Remember Mufti Abu Layth likes to say, “Quran wa Sunnah”, “Quran wa Sunnah.”

       Coryjaw, you have brought up a point that was already addressed as Mufti brought this up as well.

       “If the Quran clearly stated “‘Aīsā had no father” this would be a different discussion.”

       This is akin to Mufi Abu Layth stating:

       @15:47 Mufti Abu Layth 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?

       There is a proof from the Qur’an that weighs in on this.

       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?

       So yes, we have covered that ground and it does not help your case.

       “Verse 6:101 is interesting because taken on its own, it sounds like a direct refutation of Christian theology, though following 6:100 I realized it could also be directed at the theology of polytheistic idolaters. In the latter example it could be a matter of refuting the notion of “divine consorts”, though specifically in regards to Christians (many “traditionalists” seem to include Christian theology, which I’m fine with),.”

       I am very interested in knowing what aspect of Christian theology do you think this verse is refuting?

       “the birth of Jesus is still from a human woman, and humans have mates.”

       Which is nothing novel to Christian theology, so in what way do you think the verse is interacting with Christian theology?

       “Obviously God doesn’t need a consort to create as perhaps pagan theology suggests. God created the universe from nothing, which btw, is an example of a miracle in my understanding.”

       Al hamdulillah exactly, which leads one to wonder what people feel is the corollary of the verse to the situation of Jesus (as)? Especially as it is used to argue against a virgin birth.

       “Anti-intellectual generally means hostility and/or mistrust of the intellect or intellectuals. This is the broadest meaning. To be more specific, I’m referring to your description of my “argument”, in political terms. Your use of buzz words like “leftist”, “feminist” and “liberal”, which are a common form of dismissal used by reactionaries.”

       Well, one thing I am not is anti-intellectual (itself being subjective). I mean who or what is an intellectual is also up for discussion.

       I do believe that there is an air of condescend if someone marks their own view as intellectual in contradistinction to those who disagree with them.

       This person disagrees with me and I am intellectual therefore they are anti-intellectual.

       Also do seek your understanding that when I said your ‘argument’ that it does not have to be seen as hostile. I am disheartened to see you interpret it as such.

       In mathematics we have for example: argument of a function. The English dictionary offers as synonyms for argument the following:
       vindication, logic, defense, justification, reasoning, grounds etc.

       So, I use the word in that sense. Maybe in the future I can use a word like ‘justification’. Although, I can agree that argument can be seen as a combative terminology.

       “Your use of buzz words like “leftist”, “feminist” and “liberal”, which are a common form of dismissal used by reactionaries.”

       Yes, I can agree that my response was dismissive. I don’t have a problem with that. Like for example if I felt the claim was something that was deserving
       of the designation “centrist” or “authoritarian” or “traditionalist” I would employ them.

       Again to my earlier plea:

       “the story appears to break away from some of the patriarchal norms of that society.”
       So it does not surprise me that such a proposition is put forth given current context. Hence the use of those buzz words. I have no issue with it.

       “The term “reactionary” here is meant politically, as in returning to a past harmony, or preserving “tradition” against “new ideas”. I apologize for the “jargon”, but I don’t know a better word to describe the general ideological node. Usually the target of reactionaries is what’s unfamiliar, or apparently “foreign” (usually it’s actually more complicated) and there’s a tendency to restrict speculation, and deeper thinking. For most intellectuals, deeper thinking isn’t an “issue”.

       Sure, I have no problem with this. The thing is this: This our only interaction (that I am aware of) people have created different user names before. There hasn’t been a knee jerk action on my behalf that says: “Well that’s just kufr.”
       Or, the very fact that I have approved your comments and here I am engaging with you. Thus, far I have found it to be cordial.

       What I would object to though is any line of thought that suggest that if a traditionalist did not move from a traditionalist position that they held that this would strongly suggest they are some how anti intellectual. In this scenario quite the opposite of being a “liberal” I would find such ideas
       to be couched neocolonial and imperialistic thinking. The kind of thinking that seeks to browbeat and shame opposing views simply because the interlocutor did not succumb to the view of the one opposing his/her view.

       “On the other hand, a vigorous intellectual engagement, at least in my experience, requires one to look deeper at a subject, and in the case of a text, that means looking for metaphors, themes, parts of speech ect, with the goal of gaining new insights, which wouldn’t be “obvious”.

       Yes, I do tend to find this problematic as well. That is because I find that it is couched in a language that strongly suggest that unless I view the text in that particular way I am anti-intellectual. I find it is couched in neocolonial language and it feigns superiority. It seems to scream out: “Well, unless you natives view things the way I view them you are all uncivilized.” I don’t think this helpful to vigorous intellectual discourse at all.

       An alternative view to that can be simply: That people view the text as they do. When the Qur’an says: “Say Allah is absolutely one.” It doesn’t occur to my mind (at least) that God is a compound unity, or that is a metaphor for the human condition.

       Often times metaphors are useful and certainly the Qur’an employs it. Other times they are forced readings into a text. All of which is subjective would we not agree? Some Muslims find that the Qur’an speaks about black holes, atomic theory, and so forth. Others would suggest that they are reading into the text what is not there.

       Again, not sure how familiar you are with this website and my over all views, but the Ibadi school in and of itself is certainly not known for any type of “anti-intellectualism.”

       Though again, the terms “intellectual” and “anti-intellectual” are themselves problematic and subjective.

       “In my experience, the “obvious” is usually a pre-existing bias (ideology).” Which I am in complete agreement with. You (coryjaw) have your suppositions when approaching practically anything in life as do I. Some times those suppositions are changed and other times they are strengthened.

       “While a good intellectual minds their own biases, anti-intellectuals often are completely oblivious of ideology, and assume their view is the default understanding.”

       You may agree or disagree with me on this. However, I think that it CAN be anti-intellectual and often IS anti-intellectual to be filled with presumptions that an individual whom holds their view to be default some how did not arrive to such conclusions after employing the very methods you suggest.

       However, I would find it disingenuous and frankly speaking frightening if your good-self or Mufti Abu Layth arrived to the conclusion that I must be “anti-intellectual” because I do not succumb to the positions that you hold. I think such people have the very “Molvi thinking” they think they are pushing back against.

       An alternative to that very fuzzy thinking would be simply to acknowledge the other side is not convinced of your justifications.

       In similar vein I do not want to think that you are anti-intellectual for being dismissive of what I see as the “obvious” reading of the text. Reading your worldview into the text and molding it accordingly.

       I’d rather just walk away with the impression that you (coryjaw) were simply not convinced.

       I would like to think of us all as judges, we are accessing data. Often a judge makes decisions based upon the current available data. When there is new data there could be various possible outcomes. The most obvious that comes to my mind is that the judge finds that the new data adds new information that informs the decision made based upon previous data and than that decision itself is changed. The other scenario is that the judge finds the data after careful investigation is immaterial. It does not sway the previous decision.

       Stay blessed.
     • coryjaw

       January 5, 2024 at 7:47 pm

       “Salam. True, but those who read the comments would miss out on other perspectives that enrich us all.
       It also seems that you are invested enough in this topic that you keep engaged so Al hamdulillah.”

       Fair enough.

       “He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ ” (Qur’an 19:21)

       This says he is a sign unto men. I would tend to think that if he was some “supposed exception” to the rule that in and of itself would
       indicate making him as an “ayat”. or, being miracle -in the way that categories 2 and 3 would not find acceptable.”

       Though him being an aya is not the same as the virgin birth. Remember, there are a few different miracles associated with ‘Aīsā, not to mention he became an icon for many nations. Also, if his birth was the sign, it would only serve us and Maryam, as few people would believe it if she said it, and ironically, the Quran never suggests that she does. Imagine someone told you they miraculously gave birth to someone without sexual intercourse. Would you believe them? I might think they weren’t well. It definitely wouldn’t impact me to the extent that the story of Maryam’s pregnancy in the Quran did. Ironically, the biblical account (those that mention virgin birth) don’t nearly have the same impact. Perhaps there’s something wrong with me, but I only came to appreciate the miraculousness of the natural everyday occurrence of birth, when I considered the way it is spiritualized in the Quran, though this can only be if I read it naturally. If I understood Maryam’s pregnancy as just a spontaneous magical occurrence (I don’t say this to be dismissive), it completely looses its thematic impact for me. Even the “Big Bang” is a spectacular account of existence. Not just the world appeared as is, without any process of becoming. It just seems more real and visceral to me, and it makes me appreciate what we often take for granted. I know the world we exist in definitely seems more like a process, than like a spontaneous event, without any symbolic value.

       “So I gleaned from this you were offering your explanation of Qur’an 19:21. Thus, I made my comment because I am totally unaware of this commentary in any of the early Christian/Islamic sources. Now that does not mean any exist I would just be very interested in any that you would have from the early Christian and Islamic communities that would be in line with this view.

       In fact, something else I found interesting that Mufti Abu Layth does acknowledge in his build up of the actual discussion is that there is allot of charged up language surrounding Jesus (as) that seems really unnecessary and even redundant if we are to walk away with the impression that: “Oh that was just Mary (as) ya know challenging the Patriarchy.””

       I was referring to the entire story actually. It’s unusual in that it’s one of the few Quranic stories that focuses on a female lead, who is named. I’m not speaking on what someone else wrote about it. It’s striking to me as it is. Furthermore, ‘Aīsā is called “son of Maryam”, which is explicitly atypical. If you take the position that ‘Aīsā has no earthly father, he also has no paternal lineage, in a society that places heavy emphasis on paternal lineage, and he’s given the honor of being identified al-Masihh, a title belonging to a special character within the Jewish tradition whose lineage has been disputed, and they were never able to identify his lineage. I don’t recall the quote from the end, but the story is reported by Allah, not Maryam anyway.

       “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.”

       The issue with this argument, is that every person has a dad. God wouldn’t have to say it, we would assume it. The same way we assume Muhammad had a dad. Something that’s highly irregular has a greater burden of proof. I’m sure you get how that works, but I can explain why that is if you’d like.

       “There is a proof from the Qur’an that weighs in on this.

       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?

       So yes, we have covered that ground and it does not help your case.”

       If I’m not mistaken, 33:5 is in regards to adopted children (check 33:4). The word ‘ābā’ can also refer to forefathers (ancestors), and the verse supposedly refers to the biological parent, whom in this patriarchal society would have been given the father’s name, as it is not the adoptees biological offspring. It doesn’t seem relevant to how God refers to us in general, unless your ideological assumption is that God reasserts patriarchal norms essentially. I also considered that Maryam had gone away, and if the father had encountered her on this trip away from her monastic life in the temple (I recently discovered temple monasticism was a thing for priestly families), he (the father) would have been foreign to Maryam. Perhaps ‘Aīsā was also known to his people as “son of Maryam”, due to the foreigness of his father. This doesn’t take away from the uniqueness of the account, as in so many prophetic stories there’s no mention of wives, but this one doesn’t mention a husband.

       “I am very interested in knowing what aspect of Christian theology do you think this verse is refuting?”

       I can’t tell if you’re being facetious, but I’m going to take the question serious as I can’t read your tone. So this verse would be specifically refuting the notion that Jesus was the son of God, or that God could have a son, though directed at the pagan theology, where as 4:171 for instance speaks specifically to Christians.

       “Which is nothing novel to Christian theology, so in what way do you think the verse is interacting with Christian theology?”

       I think there may be a miscommunication here. I’m saying it refutes Christian theology. That’s the extent of the interaction I’m suggesting. In the popular Christian theology, Jesus is “born of a virgin”. It’s stated explicitly in their text. It’s not hard to see if Christians had read the Muslim account, how they might have come to the conclusion that while Jesus born of a virgin, the “spirit breath” of God, does not make him an actual son.

       “Al hamdulillah exactly, which leads one to wonder what people feel is the corollary of the verse to the situation of Jesus (as)? Especially as it is used to argue against a virgin birth.”

       Are you still referring to 6:101? The argument is that God is identifying the need of consorts for beings that are created (who are not God). I suppose consorts are a fixture in Arab paganism as in Greek or Egyptian. Though there are a number of other passages in the Quran which discuss the way humans reproduce, and things coming in pairs ect. Though it’s an interesting discussion, I unfortunately don’t think I have enough time to get into it. You appear to have a lot more time for these discussions on the internet than I do, mashaAllah, though I’ll have to digress on that. Hit me up in another place, where the message will be saved, and we can continue perhaps (up to you).

       “Also do seek your understanding that when I said your ‘argument’ that it does not have to be seen as hostile. I am disheartened to see you interpret it as such.

       In mathematics we have for example: argument of a function. The English dictionary offers as synonyms for argument the following:
       vindication, logic, defense, justification, reasoning, grounds etc.

       So, I use the word in that sense. Maybe in the future I can use a word like ‘justification’. Although, I can agree that argument can be seen as a combative terminology.”

       I wouldn’t refer to a view as intellectual, but rather this is how I would describe an approach. I didn’t see you calling what I said an “argument” as hostile, though what you were referring to wasn’t an argument. At least not in my understanding. You said: “It also reminds one of the kind of arguments that hyper skeptics and atheist use.”
       but I hadn’t produced one so I was confused. I just have you a piece of my interpretation. And your example of something like what I said was: “What is the purpose in having Muhammed (saw) receive revelation away from everyone in a cave.” I’ve never seen such an argument, But I was asking you what argument you were referring to specifically as I was confused. Also, looking back at that post, I recognized a number of typos in my response. Apologies. I was typing those messages on a cell phone in between traveling for work and having meetings ect. What I meant to say was that the story seems to focus on the humanness of ‘Aisa, as opposed to his common association with divinity amongst Christians. I think I figured out what you were expressing about the argument now though. I can see how the example of the “atheist’s statement” could be used rhetorically in an argument, though what would the actual point of the rhetoric be? A single question doesn’t stand as an argument out of context really. Also, is that a popular tradition even that Muhammad received all his revelations in a cave? I’m thinking (forgive me if I’m still off) that you were referring to my suggestion that there would be purpose in such an exceptional event as a virgin birth? That seems like a statement of fact to me, not an argument. If it occurred, there is reason, though I haven’t found a satisfactory explanation thus far, and the common view of proponents seems to just be that God does miracles to show his power, or demonstrate he can, which doesn’t really say much to those who believe, and speaks more to a modern age of “scientific revolution” than it seems to speak to the ancients. Virgin births were less foreign to ancient thinking. I heard one Muslim scholar suggest it was a sign of the end times. Of course this doesn’t work for contemporaries beside Maryam, as I doubt most would believe it, so a sign to who? Us, who presumably already accept the Quran? I can see ‘Aīsā being a sign in that he preached of end of times, but who saw his virgin conception? Ironically another theory given by the same scholar suggests it was to remind us of the miraculousness of birth. If you don’t see immediately why this is ironic to me, it’s that I only got this impression when I read the story in the Quran “naturalistically” (viewing certain aspects as metaphorical), that I got this impression, and as I mentioned, the popular interpretation had no such impact on me. As I’m pondering the symbolic purpose of a virgin birth now, inshaAllah it will come to me.

       “Well, one thing I am not is anti-intellectual (itself being subjective). I mean who or what is an intellectual is also up for discussion.”

       If it’s true that it’s subjective, then you are anti-intellectual at same time as not being anti-intellectual, though I disagree that it’s subjective. The word has a meaning. Also, I’m not saying you are anti-intellectual, we’ve managed to have some intellectual discourse. Rather I’m pointing out how some of what you said, appears that way. I apologize if I offended you.

       “I do believe that there is an air of condescend if someone marks their own view as intellectual in contradistinction to those who disagree with them.

       This person disagrees with me and I am intellectual therefore they are anti-intellectual.”

       Intellectuals have disagreements all the time, and don’t label one another. It’s called an “intellectual disagreement”. Though, I was very specific with what I was referring to. Something I think I could be more specific about is your apparent suggestion that looking at the text in some other way would be an issue for the reader. How could the use of the intellect in any way be an issue? How can we do philosophy or science without bringing in new perspectives? How then would we “produce” knowledge?

       “Yes, I can agree that my response was dismissive. I don’t have a problem with that. Like for example if I felt the claim was something that was deserving
       of the designation “centrist” or “authoritarian” or “traditionalist” I would employ them.”

       I appreciate you acknowledging that you were being dismissive. It’s an easy way to neutralize opposition, though I think you probably can learn more from the perspective before you dismiss it wholesale. I don’t dismiss ideas based on there supposed “newness” or traditional application. I certainly don’t take the belief that the first few generations were the smartest, or that if it’s not already an established opinion, it’s wrong, so I dismiss what I have confirmed to be incorrect, based on my own knowledge and intelligence. Of course God knows best, and if I am wrong, it is my own mistake.

       “Sure, I have no problem with this. The thing is this: This our only interaction (that I am aware of) people have created different user names before. There hasn’t been a knee jerk action on my behalf that says: “Well that’s just kufr.”
       Or, the very fact that I have approved your comments and here I am engaging with you. Thus, far I have found it to be cordial.

       What I would object to though is any line of thought that suggest that if a traditionalist did not move from a traditionalist position that they held that this would strongly suggest they are some how anti intellectual. In this scenario quite the opposite of being a “liberal” I would find such ideas
       to be couched neocolonial and imperialistic thinking. The kind of thinking that seeks to browbeat and shame opposing views simply because the interlocutor did not succumb to the view of the one opposing his/her view.”

       I appreciate that. Though this is your website and your readers. I’m not a follower, so to be fair, it’s also common for reactionaries to gang up on the opposition. So perhaps, you throwing all these labels at me (which aren’t bad words to me), is to reaffirm the positions of your readers, which I assume to be mostly similar in mindset to you. So while you’re not calling me a kafr outright, and you are generally expressing yourself politely, the buzz words function like dog whistles (if you’re familiar with the expression). This doesn’t have to be you, but that is the climate we’re speaking in.

       “Yes, I do tend to find this problematic as well. That is because I find that it is couched in a language that strongly suggest that unless I view the text in that particular way I am anti-intellectual. I find it is couched in neocolonial language and it feigns superiority. It seems to scream out: “Well, unless you natives view things the way I view them you are all uncivilized.” I don’t think this helpful to vigorous intellectual discourse at all.”

       Well once again, I didn’t say you were anti-intellectual. I referred to comments you made that portrayed that. Also, once again, this is your site. I’m a visitor passing through. The power is in your hands, not mine. I’m not a colonizer, and I don’t enjoy the privilege of holding on to some imagined idealized past that is cleansed of the “impurity” of the modern. Still, I’m as much a victim of neo-colonialism as anyone. Sounds a bit to me like you’re making a lot of assumptions out of ignorance, considering this last bit. You know the “Left” are the anti-colonial ones right? I get the impression you’re not as familiar with political theory (my other major was Political Science) as me, and I don’t fault you on that, or think that makes you uncivilized, but if you’re anti-colonial, we’re on the same page at least on that. Doesn’t mean I accept every conservative view point, that some post-colonial muslims believe is all there is of muslim tradition, which as you might be a aware, is actually quite diverse. My approach is not very different than the scholars I follow after, though no narrative created by humans (again “knowledge production) is set in stone. Encounters with the other, new perspectives ect, they open space for contextual revolution. For instance, most Muslims today can agree that slavery is generally wrong, and many also reject concubinage, this is the shift in context, which brings out another aspect of the “pretext” (God cannot be confined by a book). Also, reactionary ideologies don’t belong exclusively to the global south or something. Where I live, in the West, a modern neoliberal society is loaded with reactionaries. Their crescendo has historically been authoritarian regimes of power, which function in liberal society as authoritarian ideologies. Sometimes it appears like reactionaries on all sides share these false dichotomies, and it stands to reason that they all conclude in needless bloodshed if left unchecked. I’d encourage you to learn the history of fascism, and beware of falling in their footsteps if you think you could be reactionary in your thinking.

       So there’s no ambiguity, I’m a muslim, a leftist, and I’m mostly liberal socially. None of these things are contradictory in my understanding. If they are for you, it’s either my ignorance or its yours. I’m also not particularly interested in making you agree with my positions. If you’re interested in building, I welcome that. My initial comment was only that I think you were misunderstanding the mufti on that one point, and I still think you made a mistake, but maybe I’m missing something. I’m human after all.

       “An alternative view to that can be simply: That people view the text as they do. When the Qur’an says: “Say Allah is absolutely one.” It doesn’t occur to my mind (at least) that God is a compound unity, or that is a metaphor for the human condition.”

       As I already stated, different people come to the text with different assumptions. It’s important to stay humble about that. I don’t understand the last portion of what you’re saying.

       “Often times metaphors are useful and certainly the Qur’an employs it. Other times they are forced readings into a text. All of which is subjective would we not agree? Some Muslims find that the Qur’an speaks about black holes, atomic theory, and so forth. Others would suggest that they are reading into the text what is not there.

       Again, not sure how familiar you are with this website and my over all views, but the Ibadi school in and of itself is certainly not known for any type of “anti-intellectualism.””

       There are many readings for sure, and no I’m not familiar with your site. I have only minimal knowledge of Ibadi thought, but I find it interesting. I could only find snippets of the major hadith collection, which at one point I was quite interested in. I’ll definitely take a look through some of your pages here, gain some insight. I still haven’t gotten to really read the other piece you posted to me.

       “You may agree or disagree with me on this. However, I think that it CAN be anti-intellectual and often IS anti-intellectual to be filled with presumptions that an individual whom holds their view to be default some how did not arrive to such conclusions after employing the very methods you suggest.”

       I’m not sure about this, but I also don’t believe that ones intellectual engagement should stop at some point, as the truth is with God, and God is beyond what we can reach. This is also why I reject a strictly traditionalist approach. Imo, there is no “traditional”, or “progressive” islam. For me, islam transcends such distinctions, though can only be understood within different contexts as incomplete. There’s more to my thinking on this, but I’m tired, and this is a long message to respond to, perhaps another time.

       “However, I would find it disingenuous and frankly speaking frightening if your good-self or Mufti Abu Layth arrived to the conclusion that I must be “anti-intellectual” because I do not succumb to the positions that you hold. I think such people have the very “Molvi thinking” they think they are pushing back against.”

       Well I’m not Mufti Abu Layth, and I won’t rehash what I’ve already stated a few times in this response about being anti-intellectual.

       “An alternative to that very fuzzy thinking would be simply to acknowledge the other side is not convinced of your justifications.”

       Though, I’m uninterested in convincing you of anything really. I think you did a good refutation, even if I disagree with certain points and think you made a few mistakes.

       “In similar vein I do not want to think that you are anti-intellectual for being dismissive of what I see as the “obvious” reading of the text. Reading your worldview into the text and molding it accordingly.”

       I don’t agree that your understanding is obvious. It may be correct though. And I don’t think I read my worldview into the text anymore than you do. We try and come to the Quran with a “clean heart”, but we deduce based on a series of different pre-existing personal, social, and philosophical constructs, which often operate on a deeper level than what we’re aware of at all times. I didn’t finish reading the Quran until late in my life, though over my lifetime, since I was a kid, my perspective changed considerable between attempts. Whatever I read and learned over that time I supposed influenced me to push through and study the book. It brought me to the conclusions I’ve made, and I suppose it will bring me to new ones with time. Though Islam was never forced on me as a child. My mother isn’t even a Muslim. So I am here by the will Allah. If Allah sends me away, I’ll go away.

       “I’d rather just walk away with the impression that you (coryjaw) were simply not convinced.”

       I’m honestly not convinced by your argument, but mainly because what you see as obvious, clearly isn’t that obvious to me. I think your inference is fair, but not a necessary reading. And I don’t have any issues with it, though I think it requires more explanation if it’s correct, and that’s from a more thematic perspective. Not as in the natural sciences.

       “I would like to think of us all as judges, we are accessing data. Often a judge makes decisions based upon the current available data. When there is new data there could be various possible outcomes. The most obvious that comes to my mind is that the judge finds that the new data adds new information that informs the decision made based upon previous data and than that decision itself is changed. The other scenario is that the judge finds the data after careful investigation is immaterial. It does not sway the previous decision.”

       I like this analogy.

       “Stay blessed.”

       Same to you brother (or sister).
     • primaquran

       January 5, 2024 at 10:24 pm

       “Though him being an aya is not the same as the virgin birth. Remember, there are a few different miracles associated with ‘Aīsā, not to mention he became an icon for many nations. Also, if his birth was the sign, it would only serve us and Maryam, as few people would believe it if she said it, and ironically, the Quran never suggests that she does.”

       Yet it never suggest that she doesn’t. If we think this through. If and if is conditional she was carrying the child and she was aware of her own state
       she would certainly be aware of her own condition. That just logically follows.

       Other than that, I am in agreement with you have stated.
       The over 800 million people in China who may not have access to the Arabic language you have to wonder in what sense would it be a “sign” So no matter’s whose interpretation was taken you have t o wonder in what sense is it a sign to those who do not have access to the data.

       “Imagine someone told you they miraculously gave birth to someone without sexual intercourse. Would you believe them? I might think they weren’t well.”

       Of course given your presupposition on the matter.

       “If I understood Maryam’s pregnancy as just a spontaneous magical occurrence (I don’t say this to be dismissive), it completely looses its thematic impact for me.”

       Understood the word usage given your presupposition on the matter.

       “I was referring to the entire story actually. It’s unusual in that it’s one of the few Quranic stories that focuses on a female lead, who is named. I’m not speaking on what someone else wrote about it. It’s striking to me as it is. Furthermore, ‘Aīsā is called “son of Maryam”, which is explicitly atypical.”

       Pardon me, but I still did not see an explanation of what it all means, (the entire story).

       “Furthermore, ‘Aīsā is called “son of Maryam”, which is explicitly atypical.”

       It most certainly is indeed. I mean if one is going to believe that Jesus (as) was not conceived through a virgin birth one would certainly need
       to have an explanation for that very atypical description. Not once referenced as the ‘son of Joseph’ in the Qur’an or the hadith literature.

       “I don’t recall the quote from the end, but the story is reported by Allah, not Maryam anyway.”

       I can’t comment on something you cannot recall.

       “The issue with this argument, is that every person has a dad. God wouldn’t have to say it, we would assume it. The same way we assume Muhammad had a dad.”

       Yes in the same way that we assume that everyone has a mother. In the same way that I assume that my spoon will not turn into a snake at any given moment.

       It is indeed an assumption. This is more of a much larger debate with in Islamic history on the issue of rather or not miracles violate some supposed laws of causality. Where as in this entry I am staying focused on the particular justifications given by Mufti Abu Layth, rather than the acknowledged ancillary issues which are part of a much larger discussion.

       “If I’m not mistaken, 33:5 is in regards to adopted children (check 33:4). The word ‘ābā’ can also refer to forefathers (ancestors), and the verse supposedly refers to the biological parent, whom in this patriarchal society would have been given the father’s name, as it is not the adoptees biological offspring. It doesn’t seem relevant to how God refers to us in general, unless your ideological assumption is that God reasserts patriarchal norms essentially.”

       I am well aware of the context. Though your addition is helpful for those who may not be. So the point here is that if this is the case for adopted children how much more so for those cases where the father is known?

       “Perhaps ‘Aīsā was also known to his people as “son of Maryam”, due to the foreigness of his father. This doesn’t take away from the uniqueness of the account, as in so many prophetic stories there’s no mention of wives, but this one doesn’t mention a husband.”

       Not being facetious but this also is fascinating to me. The various scenarios that are given to justify the position. I don’t want to be seen as a person who is simply appealing to authority, but we are talking how the text was read correct? So for centuries Christianity and Islam understood the text as such. However, in the case of Islam, once it was exposed to outside worldviews, those outside worldviews began to have an impact on the interpretation of the text.

       “I can’t tell if you’re being facetious, but I’m going to take the question serious as I can’t read your tone. So this verse would be specifically refuting the notion that Jesus was the son of God, or that God could have a son, though directed at the pagan theology, where as 4:171 for instance speaks specifically to Christians.”

       I am going to be curt here. Apologies. It is clear to me that you do not have grounding in Christian theology. So this is a suggestion and it is up you if you take this sincerely or not. I am going to suggest that you take that view and go on a platform like X (Twitter) and if you like I can give you a list of Christians that involve themselves in Christian-Islamic apologetics. What I will ask you to do (rather you want to use your real name or not) is to put forward to them what you just posted and see how that plays out.

       The number of times I have seen Muslims who actually DO engage with Christians and simply do not understand Christian theology, or more accurately theologies is surprising. However, in your case maybe less so. So it is little wonder that your good self and Mufti Abu Layth understand
       Qur’an 6:101 as such.

       “I think there may be a miscommunication here. I’m saying it refutes Christian theology. That’s the extent of the interaction I’m suggesting. In the popular Christian theology, Jesus is “born of a virgin”. It’s stated explicitly in their text. It’s not hard to see if Christians had read the Muslim account, how they might have come to the conclusion that while Jesus born of a virgin, the “spirit breath” of God, does not make him an actual son.”

       I think you are not realizing the gravity of your ignorance on the subject matter. Again, do take my suggestion seriously. Take those propositions to Christian channels and you find out for yourself if it solid.

       If you are offended by my use of the word ignorant than know that I myself am ignorant of a great many things. No matter our disagreements. You will rue the day my friend that you bring that to Christians.

       In fact, you know what? I’d love for Mufti Abu Layth to invite a Christian theologian on his channel and bring this up to him. It certainly would be sobering.

       “Are you still referring to 6:101? The argument is that God is identifying the need of consorts for beings that are created (who are not God). I suppose consorts are a fixture in Arab paganism as in Greek or Egyptian.”

       The argument is that God is identifying is ability to create everything out of nothing first and foremost and second Allah (swt) is drawling attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion to begin with. Thus it is not possible for Allah (swt). This is another ancillary topic: Does Allah have power over all things vs Can Allah do all things? Our theological school asserts the former and not the later.

       “Though there are a number of other passages in the Quran which discuss the way humans reproduce, and things coming in pairs ect.”
       Yes by all means do stick to these verses! Qur’an 6:101 is not the win that the proponents that say Jesus (as) was conceived naturally think that it is. The way the verse has been utilized by them is logically unsound.

       “You said: “It also reminds one of the kind of arguments that hyper skeptics and atheist use.” but I hadn’t produced one so I was confused. I just have you a piece of my interpretation.”

       Understood. May Allah suffice us.

       “I recognized a number of typos in my response. Apologies. I was typing those messages on a cell phone in between traveling for work and having meetings ect.”

       No worries. This blog is not going to win any awards for impeccable grammar, syntax or even spelling any time soon. Ha!

       “I haven’t found a satisfactory explanation thus far, and the common view of proponents seems to just be that God does miracles to show his power, or demonstrate he can, which doesn’t really say much to those who believe, and speaks more to a modern age of “scientific revolution” than it seems to speak to the ancients.”

       Yes agreed and please do not mistake me. I sincerely am thankful that there are those in the Muslim community from the time of the Ahl al-Tawhid wa l-‘Adl who had such views. Also, as I mentioned a number of times, that this is all part of a much larger discussion.

       So it is good to have this perspective when atheist and agnostics will ask questions about miracles supposedly violating the “laws of causality.” So those Muslims who do not know how to give a robust reply to such skepticism can rely upon that approach.

       My friend Professor Ed Moad has written a small paper on this here: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/tying-your-camel-an-islamic-perspective-on-methodological-naturalism

       As for me Al hamdulillah for what I know and have experienced of Islam. As I said to be clear, thankful there are those views that people like yourself hold to and find robust and coherent.

       As for me I couldn’t hold those views because I do not find them to be consonant with the Qur’an. I do appreciate your honesty as well.

       “Virgin births were less foreign to ancient thinking. I heard one Muslim scholar suggest it was a sign of the end times. Of course this doesn’t work for contemporaries beside Maryam, as I doubt most would believe it, so a sign to who? Us, who presumably already accept the Quran? I can see ‘Aīsā being a sign in that he preached of end of times, but who saw his virgin conception? Ironically another theory given by the same scholar suggests it was to remind us of the miraculousness of birth. If you don’t see immediately why this is ironic to me, it’s that I only got this impression when I read the story in the Quran “naturalistically” (viewing certain aspects as metaphorical), that I got this impression, and as I mentioned, the popular interpretation had no such impact on me. As I’m pondering the symbolic purpose of a virgin birth now, inshaAllah it will come to me.”

       So I am no here to pontificate on the musings of what this or that one may or may not have said. The article is simply addressing those examples that Mufti Abu Layth did give for his position.

       Yes, as stated it is part of a much larger discussion. Do the laws of physics “break down” inside of black holes?
       Does fire have the capacity in and of itself (independent of Allah) to burn me?
       How do I know my spoon will not turn into a snake at any given moment? Should I at least expect it?
       How can I know with 100% certainty that when I get in a car and drive down the highway (where there are literally millions of life threatening variable) that I will get from point a to point b?
       Who is this guy I am getting into the taxi with? I don’t know him! He is driving 1900kg of steel at 120kph he is heading over a bridge is it possible he is having bad day and may take me with him over the bridge?
       Did Allah (swt) create the universe from ‘kun’ but than change his sunnah when it comes to everything else?
       Is time real?

       Again none of these questions are expected to be answered by you as that is not the point of the article.

       So again Al hamdulillah that people like yourself hold such views. and are diligent in your prayers, take your faith and your relationship with Allah (swt) seriously. As for me if I didn’t have the clarity I have now and was exposed to such views earlier I honestly could have become at the very least an agnostic. For me, okay? I am speaking about myself personally, I would find such a position intellectually dishonest to have to keep reading the Qur’an “naturalistically” and having to see metaphors at every turn. At that point I would have to have an honest discussion with myself and say: “Well Claudia, are you reading it as such because that is what the text says or are you just trying to hold on to faith?”

       “If it’s true that it’s subjective, then you are anti-intellectual at same time as not being anti-intellectual, though I disagree that it’s subjective. The word has a meaning.”

       Well I do not think there is a disagreement with you. The word has meaning or, otherwise it would not be intelligent in discourse. I do however, stand by the statement that who is an intellectual and who is /not is subjective. Also, it is quite possible that one could be intellectual in one sense and possibly anti intellectual in another sense.

       One of our scholars have stated as well: It is possible to be a scholar in one field and dolt in another.

       “Something I think I could be more specific about is your apparent suggestion that looking at the text in some other way would be an issue for the reader. How could the use of the intellect in any way be an issue? How can we do philosophy or science without bringing in new perspectives? How then would we “produce” knowledge?”

       All of which I am in agreement with. I even cited examples. In fact Allah (swt) clearly tells us in the Qur’an we have been given parables.

       Recall that you gave the example of a woman who says she conceived via a virgin birth. Your view is that it is quite right to be skeptical about this claim.

       Fair enough.

       So let us think about speech. Think about your day to day interactions. How would you go about your life if everything that was stated was a metaphor for something else? So to be clear in every day speech what is stated is clear, or there would be no clarity. This does not preclude people making uses of literary devices, metaphors, parables, analogies, euphemisms, idioms etc.

       Again, maybe this is for some time in the future but I would be highly interested in early Christian/Islamic commentaries that held those views that Mufti espouses in the understanding of those text.

       Again, the Christian and Islamic communities held certain understanding of the text. The Muslims encountered worldviews outside of their own and than began what I would call a radical rethink of the text.

       Again, citing the Ahmadis, naturalist but they don’t come to the conclusion of metaphorical reading of the text, Fascinating.

       So really where you and I approach this issue does circle back to faith. One has faith in miracles and therefore has no issue with the apparent meaning of the text. A meaning that interestingly coincides with those who also take a “naturalistic” approach and they came to the same conclusion.
       Another has faith that this text is relating metaphors. The text absolutely cannot be talking about miracles because the supposition is that they miracles
       violate “supposed laws” of causality. Therefore I faith that this is a metaphor. It simply just cannot be in any other way.

       That is truly something to think about. Who truly is being dogmatic. Let’s say for example: I agree that Jesus (as) was conceived naturally. Yet, I can still retain the view that Allah (swt) creates everything through “be” and that a fire in and of itself does not have the ability to burn me (independent of Allah’s power) -which to be certain is not something you would say, thus straw manning your position. So I could hold to that and say yes in this case it is as you say.
       Where as that is not something that you are not able to do. Ibrahim (as) in the fire, Jesus (as) and the birds of clay, Moses (as) and the snake it absolutely in every case must have a “naturalistic” understanding or metaphors otherwise one would have to forsake that position.

       This is why as I said in the article and in my exchanges with you that I would be highly intrigued by an experiment to introduce the text
       to control groups that have no previous knowledge of Christianity or Islam. Also, both groups would need to agree on the translation so that we do not put the cart before the horse so to speak.

       Alas I believe it is a matter of faith that the universe is a miracle. This is because we have a supposition in the belief in a Creator.

       However, a more neutral approach would be to say that since we are not able -currently- to step outside of our known universe/reality to see if it truly unique we would have no way to know if it is a miracle or one among multitudes.

       So for me I do believe this concludes the interaction as from what I gleaned during the interaction is that you are not convinced of the position that I hold. We would end up going into lengthy discussions on ancillary issues (which we have already).

       You have made it clear that you wonder how a virgin birth would be a ‘sign unto men’ and in what way that would be meaningful.

       So unless you want to respond to the responses that are directly related to the justifications given by Mufti Abu Layth in the article we could end up just spinning wheel.

       May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). Khayer insh’Allah.