“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“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)
﷽
Ultimately the rejection of the Virgin birth of Christ Jesus is not due to any plain reading of the Qur’an. It is due to aprior belief that some how miracles violate laws of causality.
Muhammed Asad was of this view. Notice how he deals with the text of the Qur’an that talks about Jesus creating the clay birds.
“And [will make him] an apostle unto the children of Israel.” “I have come unto you with a message from your Sustainer. I shall create for you out of clay, as it were, the shape of [your] destiny, and then breathe into it, so that it might become [your] destiny by God’s leave; and I shall heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life by God’s leave; and I shall let you know what you may eat and what you should store up in your houses. Behold, in all this there is indeed a message for you, if you are [truly] believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)
One may think he mentioned healing the blind, the leper and bringing the dead back to life. However, in this frame work Jesus heals the spiritually blind, and the spiritually sick and spiritually brings dead hearts back to life.
“The sunnah of Allah with those who passed on before; and you will not find in the sunnah of Allah any change.” (Qur’an 33:62)
“No change will you find in Allah’s Sunnah, and no turning off will you find in Allah’s Sunnah.” (Qur’an 35:43)
The above verses are often appealed to at the very least ground the argument in something textual. Which is certainly appreciated. However, these same people believe that Allah (swt) created the first thing he created directly. Yet, after that they have two options.
Option 1: Allah Creates Everything Directly.Meaning he has willed what the state of any given thing will be at any particular time.
If Allah’s Sunnah requires that every effect has a prior physical cause, then the first created thing had no prior physical cause. This means Allah willed what state a particular thing would be at any given time.
But if Allah can create the first thing directly—violating the supposed “rule” that every effect needs a prior physical cause—then He can create anything directly at any time.
This includes:
Creating Jesus without a father.
Creating a snake from a staff.
Creating life from clay.
Conclusion: Miracles are not violations of Allah’s Sunnah. They are direct acts of Allah, just like the original creation.
Option 2: Allah Creates Through an Intermediary Chain.
If you insist that Allah never creates directly but always through a chain of causes and effects, then you face an infinite regress:
Who created the first cause?
And who created the cause of that cause?
To avoid infinite regress, you must eventually arrive at a first cause that creates directly—which is Option 1.
Alternatively, if you say the chain is eternal (no first cause), that is philosophical nonsense (and shirk, as it implies an uncreated universe alongside Allah).
The Neoplatontonic Trap.
If miracle-deniers insist that Allah never creates directly but only through intermediaries, they fall into a Neoplatonic emanationist framework:
A series of intelligences or spheres that mediate creation.
The “First Intellect” emanates from Allah, then creates the next, and so on.
This effectively creates demi-gods—intermediary creators.
This is shirk because it attributes creative power to beings other than Allah. The Qur’an is clear:
“Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is, over all things, Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 39:62)
“Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven and earth?” (Qur’an 35:3)
Allah created the first thing directly, without any prior cause. This act of direct creation is itself the origin of Allah’s Sunnah, not a violation of it. Allah may choose what state or conditoin anything will be in at any given time-what are called miracles. They do not change Allah’s Sunnah; they are expressions of His absolute power to create as He wills.
The verse that our opponents use (Qur’an 35:43) actually proves our position.
The verse speaks of Allah’s sunnah in dealing with arrogant nations—His pattern of sending messengers, giving them time to repent, and then punishing them if they persist in evil. This has nothing to do with physical causality.
They are committing category error by taking a verse about divine justice and applying it to physics. The “no change” in Allah’s Sunnah refers to His moral and historical patterns—not to whether He can create a fatherless child.
This article will be addressing points that Mufti Abu Layth made in regards to the ‘Virgin birth of Jesus’. We should say that, for the most part, We disagree with Mufti Abu Layth on few issues. He was willing to make himself accessible to the general public and found favour among some Muslim youth. Many of those Muslim youth were reconsidering their own convictions about Islam. For that effort and ijtihad, surely his reward is with Allah.
However, We don’t really feel that this article is a refutation of points raised by Mufti Abu Layth at all. That is because to those who pay attention to detail will find that these are in reality not arguments presented by Mufti Abu Layth.
Another article that We wrote was in agreement with Mufti Abu Layth on the issue of the ‘Second coming of Jesus’. Yet, even in that article We pointed out that perhaps Mufti Abu Layth may have some misgivings about 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 are in our opinion some problematic statements in the aforementioned.
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “It perhaps is the second most important belief in Christianity.” Not even close. In fairness he did say, “perhaps.”
Mufti Abu Layth has said: ”It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. “
Perhaps he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood him.
We have to believe that he did, because it doesn’t even make any sense. How does an belief in the second coming of Jesus become the bedrock and foundation of Christianity?
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. We have to believe he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood his point.
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “Things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity.“
Mufti Abu Layth couldn’t make this claim to any reputable Christian scholar, without being taken to task for it. 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.
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. “
From that it follows We may inquire:
Which early Christians didn’t believe in the virgin birth?
What are your sources?
Whom are you relying upon for this information?
Mufti Abu Layth 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)
Mufti Abu Layth 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?
We would be willing to respectfully suggest to him that Perhaps he had Galatians 4:4 or Romans 1:3 in mind?
Mufti Abu Layth has said: It was only 200-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief.”
Ourresponse: That is not accurate. 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/
The actual evidences that are brought to reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
Now, let us turn our attention to his statements concerning the Qur’an and this matter.
So please see what Mufti Abu Layth has said on the subject here:
So this is the video that is titled: “Does the Qur’an Mention a Virgin Birth for Jesus?” Mufti Abu Layth lays out his view, his proofs and justifications.
So where do We begin with the 20 minutes and 21 seconds that have been allotted to this subject by Mufti Abu Layth?
Well, the beginning of course!
Allow us to preface by saying that We do not think that people are unbelievers for saying that Jesus the son of Mary was conceived through a father and mother. We certainly don’t believe that.
We 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 which are anonymous and not given to us.
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. That being said We agree with Mufti Abu Layth that truth is not a democracy.
Truth is truth and it stands or falls based upon the veracity and scrutiny of it’s own claims.
We would also add that it is the theological view of Mufti Abu Layth 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.
That has been a particular view held by some Muslims in Islamic history, namely that miracles violate the laws of causality.
An interesting thought experiment in regards to the available text.
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?
That would be most intriguing.
Mufti Abu Layth @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.
Our response: We certainly believe that Jesus is a word proceeding from Allah (swt). We certainly believe that Jesus is a spirit proceeding from Allah (swt).
Mufti Abu Layth claims that ‘That it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus’ that claim of his is patently false.
Certainly what our respected brother Mufti Abu Layth has said is factually incorrect.
In fact, We are telling you in all our years and exposure to Islam and Muslims, and an array of opinions and perspectives this is the very first time We are seeing any Muslim raise an objection. So it is quite the opposite of what he claimed.
@0:38 Mufti Abu Layth 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 us. That it does not resonate with Muslims?
Yet, it is a curiosity that he chose to render the text as ‘The word of God‘?
@0:56 Mufti Abu Layth We feel he meant to quote Qur’an 3:45 and not 3:43 but he quotes:
“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 Mufti Abu Layth himself translates as “the word coming from God.” We didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.
@1:20 Mufti Abu Layth 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 Mufti Abu Layth himself translates “his word which he sent down.” We didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.
@1:54 Mufti Abu Layth 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.”
Mufti Abu Layth has stated: @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.”
He says that the Qur’an says on more than one occasion 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 Mufti Abu Layth 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, We haven’t personally seen the Qur’an refer to Jesus as ‘The Word of Allah’. We have no idea where Mufti Abu Layth derived 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 We are aware of) that comes even remotely close to such an understanding of Jesus role as ‘word’.
However, if Jesus is not understood as the Created word of Allah than this indeed is problematic. If this is the point that Mufti Abu Layth is driving home than he and us are of one accord.
For example is statement here @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 Mufti Abu Layth is echoing comes from those of us who do not believe that the Qur’an is uncreated. The Qur’an is created.
We do recall a brother sending us a clip of Mufti Abu Layth claiming that this theological controversy surrounding the Qur’an was a non-issue. However, We can see by the point that he has raised by those us who do not believe the Qur’an to be eternal, that it is an issue.
In fact, We think it would be great if Mufti Abu Layth cleared up for us what his position is on this issue. Does Mufti Abu Layth 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 this stance clear?
Mufti Abu Layth 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.”
Our comments:
We think Mufti Abu Layth is making a non-argument. We are certainly not in the habit of calling Jesus, ‘the word of God.’
The Holy Spirit.
Mufti Abu Layth continues @2:42 “And than the word ‘The Holy Spirit’ is used with no other prophet. We 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 assistedWe 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).”
Mufti Abu Layth 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.”
Perhaps We are misunderstanding Mufti Abu Layth’s summary. Although, his language suggests someone who views the Qur’an as a product of the Prophet’s mind (saw) rather than divine revelation.
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. We would expect that train of thought from an Orientalist who sees the Qur’an as the product of the Prophet Muhammed’s mind. (saw).
Again maybe We are reading too much into what he is trying to convey; However, the language is concerning.
The Virgin Birth
So now we finally come to this section. Mufti Abu Layth 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.”
Our comments: We 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 a lost humanity that needs to be reconciled back with God. Thus the theme of salvation and redemption are central. So We 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.
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 one 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.”
Our comments: We 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?”
We have addressed this line of thinking here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/
I’m happy to see that Mufti Abu Layth has acknowledged that Matthew does mention the virgin birth, whereas before he made an error in saying that it didn’t.
Mufti Abu Layth’s train 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?
We believe that Mufti Abu Layth is making some solid points but he needs to be prepared for what the other side will say.
Where Mufti Abu Layth really tries to force the points is where 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: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/
The Qur’an doesn’t quote from Isaiah.
@8:15 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Mary was definitely married and she was most likely definitely not a virgin.“
Our comments: What proof do you have Mufti Abu Layth that Mary was married and was ‘most likely definitely not’ a virgin?
@8:28 Mufti Abu Layth 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.”
Our comments: 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 Mufti Abu Layth.
We believe the text that Mufti Abu Layth 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)
We do not know from memory what reference he had in mind for the Gospel of Mark.
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 as John is among English speakers today.
“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 ‘Marys 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. This was certainly due to them not understanding Arabic and the context of how the language was used than.
@9:16 Mufti Abu Layth 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 him, ‘ 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 Mufti Abu Layth 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 anonymous men so that one could look at what they said.
Now, all We have to go on is what Mufti Abu Layth relates from these two anonymous scholars. However, if what he relates from them is as he says then it is simply not grounded in anything concrete.
Mufti Abu Layth continues…
“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 (as) 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 unpack what brother Mufti Abu Layth presented to us.
- 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.”
- Mufti Abu Layth 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 We step away from the keyboard and hand it over to my mother or sister…
“Dear Mufti Abu Layth did you just say this woman reached menopause?”
“Dear Mufti Abu Layth 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 Mufti Abu Layth on three points.
The first is that he actually believes in a miraculous conception after all. A woman giving birth when she is no longer producing eggs is quite the miracle indeed!
Second, since this woman is having miraculous birth without eggs We can no longer discount the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The Third is that Mufti Abu Layth 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 Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t believe that the divine violates the natural laws has been brought into disrepute.
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.
One last point on what Mufti Abu Layth said before We move on.
He rendered the Arabic text of Mary’s response as, “And hence when the angel came and she said, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.”
Now Ustadh We have to say that was clever, clever indeed. You sir, naugty, naughty.
Again, We 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?
We thought it was, “Quran wa Sunnah” Quran wa Sunnah” or do We take our beliefs from the Christians now?
Mufti Abu Layth 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 occur to Mufti Abu Layth, Allah (swt) using quite a literal language to get a point across?
No one else in the Qur’an is described with this type of language.
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 Mufti Abu Layth 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 something isn’t it.
@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?
Doesn’t’ this pique your interest at all brother Mufti Abu Layth? 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!
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 In fact, what does Allah (swt) tell us? 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.
Argument #1
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: 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 Mufti Abu Layth and his scholars use this to advocate that all the prophets had fathers.
We will give you our understanding of this verse and We will show you why our understanding is valid and Mufti Abu Layth’s understanding is not.
Our 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. Our understanding is that this verse addresses those who did have ‘fathers, descendants and brothers’.
Whereas if Mufti Abu Layth 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 Mufti Abu Layth 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.
So that argument fails.
Argument #2
@17:40 Mufti Abu Layth brings the other argument that these scholars use. Mufti Abu Layth 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 We find it interesting that Mufti Abu Layth 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 We would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas Mufti Abu Layth focuses on the term ‘wife’.
Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars’ understanding of this verse is both theologically unsound and outright egregious.
The way they understand the text, We must either choose between a Creator that is impotent (May Allah forgive us and guide us) or a Creator that is like his creation (May Allah forgive us and guide us).
Some questions that Mufti Abu Layth and his scholars would need to reflect on in order to come to the proper understanding of the verse would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
If you understand it the way that Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars do, it makes Allah (swt) imply 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 forgive us and guide us).
Why do they (Mufti Abu Layth) and his two scholars assert that Allah (swt) would need to be like his creation or unlike his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
@19:26 Mufti Abu Layth makes what has to be the most incoherent statement thatWe are 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 child when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.”(Qur’an 6:101)
Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Does Mufti Abu Layth 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 Mufti Abu Layth and/or his two scholars tell us what natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality and our existence?
The verse says, “He created all things.” In other words, if He Allah (swt) had a companion it would have to be a peer (a an equal to God). So Allah (swt) does not have a companion to begin with.
What is meant by having a companion?
Why do people seek out 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 it 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)
Mufti Abu Layth is adamant that Allah (swt) is showing them their reasoning.
Mufti Abu Layth is focused on the issue of ‘walad’ whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’ or 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 Mufti Abu Layth 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 Mufti Abu Layth 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.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 us. May Allah (swt) continue to guide and bless us. We seek the help of Allah (swt) and the help of Allah (swt) is sought.
May Allah (swt) bless Mufti Abu Layth for what he has brought that is good and May Allah (swt) forgive him and forgive us. May Allah (swt) guide him and guide us.
For those interested you may wish to read the following articles:
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 
