Islam an offense to our LORD.

[Nine_Two]

the virgin birth can be thought coherently (however implausible it may seem). It is an empirical question, and it does not involve contradiction.

Actually it is very much a paradox as well, something you’ve said can’t exist. Additionally you’re now arguing implausability to dismiss an argument against your worldview, before you were using the same term to belittle the arguments of Christianity. You need to become much more consistant.

 

[tomarin]

You claim Christ can not be God because God can not become incarnite in man while at the same time continuing to be God. Is this not placing a limitation on God?

I think you’re conflating two different ideas within “placing a limitation on God.” Traditionally Christian philosophers and theologians have affirmed that God cannot do something contrary to His nature. He can’t lie for example or commit evil, because to do so would be contrary to His nature as the ultimate good.

Similarly I don’t think Hypatia’s objection to the Incarnation is putting a limit on God because she believes that it is contrary to His nature to exist in multiple persons, since that would violate his one-ness.

 

[SonofAdam]

You have to answer first because I asked first.

Qur’aan says [from what can be translated]

"There is nothing comparable unto Him’’
112:4

Again, we are not limiting the Creator by negating what He has negated from Himself.

So what He has negated from Himself is an impossibility to attribute to Him. So now back to my question:

Can you ever attribute to God, ‘lost of life’ when you believe He is the Eternal/ Ever Living One?

 

[Nine_Two]

I think you’re conflating two different ideas within “placing a limitation on God.” Traditionally Christian philosophers and theologians have affirmed that God cannot do something contrary to His nature. He can’t lie for example or commit evil, because to do so would be contrary to His nature as the ultimate good.

Similarly I don’t think Hypatia’s objection to the Incarnation is putting a limit on God because she believes that it is contrary to His nature to exist in multiple persons, since that would violate his one-ness.

To say God cannot lie or cannot do evil has more to do with the limitations of language and understanding. What God says is truth by virtue of his speaking it, what God does is Good by virtue of him doing it.

Stating it is impossible for God to be manifest in an incarnation is putting a limit on him. Saying God wouldn’t is one thing, but saying he can’t is the issue.

 

[Nine_Two]

Qur’aan says [from what can be translated]

"There is nothing comparable unto Him’’
112:4

Again, we are not limiting the Creator by negating what He has negated from Himself.

So what He has negated from Himself is an impossibility to attribute to Him. So now back to my question:

Can you ever attribute to God, ‘lost of life’ when you believe He is the Eternal/ Ever Living One?

That does not say how the particular part I am questioning does not limit God. Nor does the concept that there is nothing to compare with indicate limitlessness. Your answer does not work.

But I will humour you, although I suspect that if you want me to go further in my explanation, then you also must provide better answers.

God is the “living God” this is in the present tense, so no, God cannot die. Indeed, as I said you’re understanding of Christianity is very basic. We do not believe Christ is dead. Certainly we believe he “died” in that his essence left his body, however three days later it returned so that he was alive again, so to use the term “dead” for Christ is incorrect.
Additionally “Death” is a human concept, and does not mean that the soul is destroyed. Nothing man does can affect God in any way, no matter how we do it to him.

To even suggest that if Christ dies this becomes a property of God is limiting God, as though you believe the existence of God is tied to the existence of any form he takes on.

 

[dzheremi]

Saying God wouldn’t is one thing, but saying he can’t is the issue.

Exactly. I see it the same way. We are talking about abilities (or so I thought), and there is nothing that God is not able to do.

Is the Qur’anic objection to the incarnation and the divine sonship actually based on something else? As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread and received NO response to, it would seem from looking at Qur’an 6:101 that the Muslims do indeed limit God in a very human way, which makes very little sense and is very inconsistent given their insistence that they reject the incarnation because it makes their utterly non-man-like God into a man, which is unacceptable.

It says there, in case anyone has forgotten:

*Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things. *(Shakir translation)

Because He has “no consort”? Really, Islam? Reallyyy? The mind boggles trying to figure out how such piffle made it into a supposedly holy book that we’re supposed to believe came directly from God’s mouth (well, the angel Gabriel at any rate) to Muhammad’s ears. Maybe he misheard this particular verse, because damn that’s some childish (and carnal, and earthly) reasoning.

 

[Hypatia]

Actually it is very much a paradox as well, something you’ve said can’t exist. Additionally you’re now arguing implausability to dismiss an argument against your worldview, before you were using the same term to belittle the arguments of Christianity. You need to become much more consistant.

There are simply two different, discrete empirical claims being stated together in something like the virigin birth. She has never had sex and she is pregnant. There is nothing contradictory or even paradoxical, as far as I can tell about the two claims. Nothing is being affirmed that is also being denied in the same respect.

And I still don’t know why you keep bringing up paradoxes since no one has denied them. If you want to show that somehow what we are calling contradictions are paradoxes that is fine, but you have never done that nor explained how we would tell the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

Even your definition of a paradox as a ‘dual truth’ is not terribly helpful (e.g., I can say my couch is blue and my couch is red. Is that a dual truth? Or do I simply mean my couch is purple, or that it has blue and red stripes?..blue cushions and red pillows?..none of these are paradoxes).

If you are going to appeal to paradox you are going to have to explain how such a category helps explain away the objections that are being made and provides a functional description of the Incarnation.

By the way, I am using implausible here in exactly the same sense that I used it in the post of above with regards to other miraculous events. The virgin birth and resurrection are both implausible, but neither involves any logical contradiction.

 

[tomarin]

To say God cannot lie or cannot do evil has more to do with the limitations of language and understanding. What God says is truth by virtue of his speaking it, what God does is Good by virtue of him doing it.

Stating it is impossible for God to be manifest in an incarnation is putting a limit on him. Saying God wouldn’t is one thing, but saying he can’t is the issue.

God cannot lie or do evil because He is the essence of good, and if he did evil he would cease to be that, and then he wouldn’t be God any more. Saying that God can do evil violates the fundamental logical principle that a thing cannot be two contradictory things at the same time.

 

[Hypatia]

No it hasn’t been answered. You answered it with a horribly aimed and argued Polemic on why God must be limited. While I completely agree that language has limits, this is very different than when the Koran says God can’t manifest himself in the flesh. This is not a limit of language at all but a limit you’re placing on God.

All I’m asking for are actual apologetics. Why is this not a limitation being placed on God?

God cannot contradict God’s own Being. This is not a limitation, but a perfection. If God could change and be something that God is not, then God would not be the Absolute and the One, and we would not, in reality, be talking about God at all. If, on the other hand, God, who is the One, is eternally something that God is not (a blatant contradiction), then, not only does the idea of God become meaningless, but one is also denying God.

 

[Hypatia]

God cannot lie or do evil because He is the essence of good, and if he did evil he would cease to be that, and then he wouldn’t be God any more. Saying that God can do evil violates the fundamental logical principle that a thing cannot be two contradictory things at the same time.

thank you… This is all i have been saying the entire time.

 

[SonofAdam]

dzheremi said

Exactly. I see it the same way. We are talking about abilities (or so I thought), and there is nothing that God is not able to do.

If someone can’t differentiate between ‘limit’ and something unbefitting of God they will fall into problems when asked these types of questions. Someone could ask ‘Does God have the ability to throw you to a place where He won’t know where you are?’ Notice the question is contradicted by what God said about Himself, meaning Him being the Owner of everything/place, space, time and All-Knowing etc. So the question does not apply to Him. As Hypatia has mentioned- this is part of Him being Perfect…

 

[SonofAdam]

dzheremi regarding 6:101

Shaykh Abu Adam:

The arguments against heretics in the Qur’aan are often according to their premises. This statement in the aayah addresses the Christians and pagans that say Allaah has children, whether male or female. These heretics think of Allaah in human terms and of Him as being of male gender, none of them have asexuality in mind, that is why the christians say “son” and “father,” and the Arab pagans said “daughters.” Muslims believe, of course, that Allaah is not attributed with gender, so He is neither male, nor female, nor neuter. That being said, a male cannot have offspring without a female partner, so the argument is complete. Note that this is according to the anthropomorphist premises of the heretics, it shows them that according to the normal rules of created beings, a male cannot have a child without a femal partner. Accordingly, it is even more absurd to claim that Allah, who is not a creature and does not have gender, to have a child. As for the philosophical point of view, I have no idea what having a child from a philosophical point of view is supposed to mean.

Note that the aayah in question offers several arguments against those who claim that Allaah has a child:

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ صَاحِبَةٌ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

Meaning: “Allah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent. How could it be that He has a child when He has no female partner??? He created everything, and He knows everything.” (Al-’An`aam, 101)

First, regarding the first part of the aayah, which means, “Allah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent.” Note that Allah affirms the Christians’ claim that Jesus was created without a father or semen. Rather he became existent without a father. So the first part of the aayah tells them, if you mean by Allah being a father that He brought Jesus into existence without precedence, i.e. innovated him without sperm or a father, that is, without the normal cause, then the same is true for the skies and the Earth, and since you do not say that the skies and the Earth are His children, then you should not say that Jesus is His child.

This statement also contains the argument that a child is like its parent, and Allaah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent, so how can anything or anyone be like Him?

The second part of the aayah, “How could it be that He has a child when He has no female partner???” is an argument against those of them who might argue that Allah had a child in the customary manner, and it was discussed above.

The third statement, “He created everything,” argues with those who say that He had a child in the customary manner, through having a bodypart (such as semen) transferred to a female parter, or having a part becoming a separate entity (asexuality). It tells them that Allaah has the power to create anything, so if He wills for something to exist, He will create it, and it is only for those that do not have this power to work on customary causes if they want something to be. This also contains a refutation of the idea that a child was adopted by Him, because adoption is another customary legal cause.

This statement also has the meaning that since Allah is the only creator, and everything else is His creation, Jesus is merely a creation.

Moreover, since Allah is the creator, and does not have a beginning, then He does not resemble what has a beginning, such as Jesus. Accordingly, how could it be true that Jesus is His son, when Jesus is a human being, with created attributes. After all, offspring are of the same kind as their parent(s). This again contains another refutation of the idea that a child was adopted by Him, because adoption is between things of similar kind.

Moreover, since Allah is the creator, and the Creator cannot be like creation (since He is not created) then He is not a body. Accordingly, He does not have a child because having a child in the customary manner only happens to bodies.

The fourth statement, “He knows everything,” emphasizes the argument contained in “He created everything,” namely that Allah has no like.

Through these arguments, all the normal meanings of having a “child” have been refuted. There are even more arguments contained in these few statements, but this should suffice to show that the Qur’aan did not present a weak argument.

Some might still argue that the word “child” is a metaphor meaning a loving relationship. The reason why Islam does not accept the word child as a metaphor with this meaning is that the word “child” contradicts the concept of ownership; it would be absurd to say that someone “owns” his “son”. Something is not said to be someone’s child and personal property at the same time. In other words, to say that Allaah has a son is to imply a flaw in His absolute ownership. Allaah said in the Qur’aan:

“وَقَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَهُ بَلْ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ”

Meaning: “They said: “Allaah has taken a son.” This saying is a lie, Allah is greatly clear of such non-befitting attributes! Rather, He is the absolute owner of all that is in the skies and on Earth!” (Al-Baqarah, 116) This statement tells us that having a child does not befit Allaah, because He is the absolute owner of everything, and because all things in the skies and Earth are created kind, and Allaah does not resemble it. Since He does not resemble any of it, none of it is His child, because a parent-child relationships are only for similar things.

The concept of having a son then, is incompatible with the concept of believing in one Creator that has absolute ownership of His creation. Moreover, the word “son” implies similarity in kind, which is another reason why it is blasphemy to say that Allaah has a son, even as a figure of speech.

 

[Hypatia]

I think I have commented on most of the other things in here elsewhere in this thread, but if not, let me know…

As I said in the Trinity thread (a response which you never responded to), it is one thing for a spiritual person to think reasonably, and another for a spiritual person to base their faith in reason. Dante Alighieri had a good point in having Virgil stop at Purgatory before Dante ascended to Paradise - he was making the point that human reason (which Virgil represented) could only go so far. That is true for any spiritual person - at some point their belief transcends human reason and rational.

That God exceeds human reason (superrational) cannot become a justification for making completely irrational claims (subrational). My main point in this thread is that one cannot attribute contradictions to God. In return, 9-2 has said this is placing a limit on God (i.e., that I am contradicting God’s nature). I interpret such a claim on 9-2’s part to be self-defeating.

You are close. There is no limitation to God, but there is a limitation to man. What you are suffering from is the Muslim idea of the Fall, which denies that Adam and Eve continued to live in a sinful state that separated them from God, and hence the need for the Incarnation to purify that image of God. It is not a contradiction of God’s nature, but an acceptance of mankind’s need for assistance from God.

Human beings cannot create a real separation between themselves and God. There is no gap that God needs to rush in and fill. Human beings can lie to themselves about the Truth. But, God is fully and intimately present to existence.

 

[Nine_Two]

There are simply two different, discrete empirical claims being stated together in something like the virigin birth. She has never had sex and she is pregnant. There is nothing contradictory or even paradoxical, as far as I can tell about the two claims. Nothing is being affirmed that is also being denied in the same respect.

And I still don’t know why you keep bringing up paradoxes since no one has denied them. If you want to show that somehow what we are calling contradictions are paradoxes that is fine, but you have never done that nor explained how we would tell the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

Even your definition of a paradox as a ‘dual truth’ is not terribly helpful (e.g., I can say my couch is blue and my couch is red. Is that a dual truth? Or do I simply mean my couch is purple, or that it has blue and red stripes?..blue cushions and red pillows?..none of these are paradoxes).

If you are going to appeal to paradox you are going to have to explain how such a category helps explain away the objections that are being made and provides a functional description of the Incarnation.

By the way, I am using implausible here in exactly the same sense that I used it in the post of above with regards to other miraculous events. The virgin birth and resurrection are both implausible, but neither involves any logical contradiction.

Logic states something can’t happen. It happens. That is a Paradox, and/or a logical contradiction.

Anyway, you continue to ignore the central question, so I’m going to continue to say you believe in a limited god. Hope that’s alright.

 

[Nine_Two]

God cannot lie or do evil because He is the essence of good, and if he did evil he would cease to be that, and then he wouldn’t be God any more. Saying that God can do evil violates the fundamental logical principle that a thing cannot be two contradictory things at the same time.

If you wish to put limits on what god can and cannot do that is your issue, but it is certainly not the belief of Christianity as a whole. God defines morality, he is not subject to it.

 

[spn82756]

I know that I am often hard on islam…as oppossed to muslims…but to answer the OP’s question…

How can denial of Christ’s divinity NOT be an offense to him? It seems clear to me that it is.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m going to need to cut down some of the quoted portions in order to conform to the word limit, but I’ll try to address what I’m seeing the main argument is.

First, regarding the first part of the aayah, which means, “Allah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent.” Note that Allah affirms the Christians’ claim that Jesus was created without a father or semen. Rather he became existent without a father. So the first part of the aayah tells them, if you mean by Allah being a father that He brought Jesus into existence without precedence, i.e. innovated him without sperm or a father, that is, without the normal cause, then the same is true for the skies and the Earth, and since you do not say that the skies and the Earth are His children, then you should not say that Jesus is His child.

This is an utterly false analogy, though, and shows a great poverty in the shaykh’s understanding of Christianity. We can say God created the Heavens and the Earth from “nothing”, if you’d like, but was Christ created from nothing? No. Christ is the eternal Word, the Logos, of one being and essence with the Father. As such He was not “created”, either in the same way as anything under the sky or in any other way. Unless you want to argue that God was without His eternal wisdom (another definition for “Logos”), this really makes no sense as an objection. We do not in the first place say that Christ was created as another one of God’s creations, like the earth or the skies or anything like that, so it is really NOT “according to (our) premises”, despite what your preamble says.

This statement also contains the argument that a child is like its parent, and Allaah is the one that created the skies and the Earth without a precedent, so how can anything or anyone be like Him?

Indeed. We do not say that Christ is “God-like”, but that He is God.

The second part of the aayah, “How could it be that He has a child when He has no female partner???” is an argument against those of them who might argue that Allah had a child in the customary manner, and it was discussed above.

Okay.

This statement also has the meaning that since Allah is the only creator, and everything else is His creation, Jesus is merely a creation.

Obviously, we disagree. You (and hence the Qur’an) are arguing from the assumed truth of your OWN presuppositions, not ours. Since we do most definitely affirm that Jesus Christ is God, there is no sense to this objection in the context of debates with Christians.

Moreover, since Allah is the creator, and does not have a beginning, then He does not resemble what has a beginning, such as Jesus.

This is another misunderstanding of the incarnation and the person of Christ on the part of Muslims. The incarnation was not always among us, but Jesus has ALWAYS been (and always will be) the eternal word of God, and hence without beginning or end. If you believe that this is not so, then explain to me how, according to Islamic belief, Jesus will return to smash crosses and kill pigs? He is “dead” already, is He not? I will assume you will probably say that it is Allah’s prerogative to send Jesus back to Earth. Fair enough. We say it is God’s perogative to have sent His Son for us and our salvation in the first place.

Accordingly, how could it be true that Jesus is His son, when Jesus is a human being, with created attributes.

Wrong. Jesus is GOD incarnate. He is perfectly and completely both God and man (all apostolic churches agree on this, regardless of how they conceptualize His divinity and humanity).

Moreover, since Allah is the creator, and the Creator cannot be like creation (since He is not created)

I suppose this depends on what you mean by “like”. I am like my father, but I am not my father. I am like any other person in the world, though I am not any other person in the world. I am like any other animal in the world, though I am not anything other than human. Let’s define our terms, please.

Accordingly, He does not have a child because having a child in the customary manner only happens to bodies.

What then of what happened to Maryam according to the Qur’an? She did not have a child “in the customary manner”. Does that mean that she did not have a body, or was she divine, or what? I don’t think this holds up as a good defense of why God cannot have a son.

Through these arguments, all the normal meanings of having a “child” have been refuted.

Hardly. These arguments are pathetically ineffective, because they are not related to what Christians actually believe. The Qur’an, and hence the defenders of it like this shaykh and you, proceed from what you say we believe, not what we say we believe. Nothing at all resembling Christianity has been refuted here. The shaykh is boxing shadows, and even so still losing.

 

[Steven_John]

The Quran also claims that Christians worship the Virgin Mary, considering her a God.

No Christian worship the Virgin Mary as a god or alongside God - if they do, they are heretics.

I doubt in Mecca there was a dominant Christian leadership. I would not be at all surprised if there were people form pagan goddess religions converting to Christian belief with very little knowledge. The bible as people know it today would not have been widely available. So ye there probably were what you would call heretics.

The most common religion i believe was some 360 gods whos leader had goddess daughters. These people would have been easy prone to error.

I feel it would be better for both Christians and Muslims to be mindful of such before deciding what old writings apply to people of today.

That’s also an incident never recorded of in the gospels, and I’m not aware of anything in Holy Tradition that says likewise. The only person ever recorded of knowing that the Virgin Mary was pregnant before marriage was Joseph, and he kept it a secret. It is therefore something unique only in the Quran, a book which came 600 years later and was recorded down by people who were nowhere near where the Virgin Mary lived or knew her personally.

IMO This argument does not refute the truth of the Quran but could be seen to support it, no one knew her or lived near her wow how is so much other information the same.
But for me by this time frame Christians would have well spoken of the conception and Jewish authorities would have developed a response i would imagine could be consistent with the Quran so while i see your argument as supporting the potential for the Quran being divinely inspired to use simple worldly thinking would refute it better. Not thats my intent.

You have spoken in this thread about idols, plain and simple bowing before in the bible actually is meaning worship and submission.

Christians here have said it simple and plain they use them to help focus on G-d.
Often in my prayer i focus on one spot on my mat to help me focus on Allah, are you going to get on my case and say i have made my mat an idol?
Those who harped on about what people spoke of with statues is no different to my wording.

Christians said they want to focus on Allah better, praise be to Him for this, He wants Christians to focus on Him that’s why He sent them a messenger (pbwh).

You know you have spoken about limiting G-d what about limiting your Brother???
If he desires to focus on G-d and says he knows the statue is nothing don’t take it from him, Allah will bring him to fullness of truth if he so wills and you help.
What if you take statue from him and he can not find a way to focus on Allah? then what have you done for him, what have you done for Allah.

Personally i don’t like statue focus, I touch them when i see them and ask Allah to strengthen us all to focus on Him through our hearts.

 

[Hypatia]

Logic states something can’t happen. It happens. That is a Paradox, and/or a logical contradiction.

Anyway, you continue to ignore the central question, so I’m going to continue to say you believe in a limited god. Hope that’s alright.

Your definition is pretty idiosyncratic. I certainly can’t think of anyone who shares it with you (can you?). Those words don’t seem to be used that way in other contexts. Nonetheless, it certainly clarifies how you are using them.

But, as I said earlier once you admit contradiction it is pretty much a conversation ender because you are free to say anything you wish. If you had just said, at the beginning, that it didn’t matter to you if the Incarnation (and Trinity) were contradictions it would have saved us a lot of time.

Of course you saying I believe in a limited God doesn’t make it so. We can certainly say that I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about God.

If you wish to put limits on what god can and cannot do that is your issue, but it is certainly not the belief of Christianity as a whole. God defines morality, he is not subject to it.

No one has said God is subject to anything. God is the Good.

You are the one who is well outside the classical tradition on this topic. I can’t think of anyone significant who agrees with you before the advent of the nominalists in the West. (Actually, there are some Muslims who agree with you before that.) Most of the classical tradition thinks that people can know that there is a God and significant things about who God is solely through the exercise of Reason (because all beings have their ground in God’s Being). Even if they go on to talk about things that can only be known by way of divine revelation, they still think that it will not go against that Reason (thus they are usually at pains to show that the Incarnation (and Trinity) are NOT contradictions. There is a reason, after all, why all that technical, precise language is developed around those two doctrines). Once again, in the absence of that, there isn’t a whole lot to talk about.

I am, once again, curious, who are the major intellectual representatives of your tradition that you think agree with you?​

at least with these last few posts of yours we are starting to see what the real issue is. you have a definition of God as omnipotent that is completely isolated from all the other divine attributes. Anything else would place limits on God. I wonder if God can decide not to be (we wouldn’t want to place any limits after all)?

 

[planten]

The birth of Jesus is being discussed and christians have brought in their incarnation. (Halool). There is no incarnation in action. The language of the Quran is very high level leading to spiritual line. Most time people try to take material meanings. That misleads the persons.

Take for instance the birth of Jesus described in the Quran (I am not going to discuss bible here), please note that there is no specific word to show that Jesus was born without the agency of a man father. Even though the apparant words of the Quran point to such an idea that Jesus was born without the agency of male intervention. But it is not so.

I am discussing here, only the Quran. The big mistake is that muslims start worrying about the birth of Jesus as a new born baby. We should remember that the news given to Mary, in the Quran, was never about a new born baby. It was about a grown up youngman (Ghulam).

The news given to Mary was about a grown up youngman and it was told to her about what he will be, what he will do etc. There is nothing in the Quran about how he will be born without a a male intervention.

Mary was not married when news was given to her in the temple and she had no hope of getting married because she had no relatives or parents there. No one to support her. No hope for marriage. But she was very pious and grown up enough to know all about how children are born.

Naturally, when the news of a splended grown up son was given to her, she was surprised. She showed her surprise too. But the angel dispelled her doubts (or brushed aside her doubts and passed on to tell more important things) and confirmed his first words by saying “Kadhalik” meaning “Like that, what I said before.” The meaning of “'Kadhalik” is not “like this” or like what you ( Mary) are saying. It means “Like that, what I said before, you will have a grown up son who will be a man of God, a messenger of God. He will do work for God… He will be a messenger for the children of Israel (Jacob)…”

The news was passed to Mary and initially, she showed surprise at that news as if it could not happen because she was not married and she was not a spoiled lady, and also because she had no apparant hope of marriage, being left over to the service of temple.

The angel did not say to Mary that she will have a son without marriage. There is no such thing in Quran. The angel, in a way, told Mary that all obstacles will be removed. She will be married and she will live a married life. She will concieve and give birth to a son. That son will not die in young age. he will live to be a grown up man. He will be given knoledge. He will have great favor with his Lord. He will teach and preach to the Jews…"

There is a long list of things all attached to the news brought to Mary by the angel. But our friends are more interested in discussing how the son will be born. That is not the important matter of the good news given to Mary.

There is no incarnation (Halool) ever in Islam. Hindus believe in it.

I request all here not to discuss how Jesus was born without a father. We should understand who was Jesus. What was his status with God? What did he Do? Christians and Muslims should not waste time in discussing how Jesus was born. The christians have made it a special case for their own purpose. But Quran does not support that line. Quran goes to more important spiritual greatness of Jesus.