Thanks for your post. To be honest I read most of your last post before and there you gave a very rational interpretation in contrast with a lot of other >.
I have wondered over the verses of Mary long before I ever read your interesting views or books you wrote.
In some of the so called gospels of the NT the genealogy of Yeshua / Isa (Peace is with him) also traces through Joseph, which contrasts the view that Joseph would not have been the biological father of the 'Son of Man'. Wether we can trust these gospels or the genealogies or what they mean is worth mentioning but a bit off topic now.
You must not get me wrong: I respect your inquisitive mind and your daring work and have to state you write about things others are afraid to speak or think about.
I think a growing number of people in the 'muslim sphere' (I hope) feel (intuitively?) that the soup the mullas serve has fishy or phony ingredients so to speak, but the fear of social repercussions by speaking about the issue silences many of them and the 'status quo' seems to be hard to be broken to open up the mind of most of the so called muslim population and to give that push to progress out of that status quo, away from the fear of punishment after resurrection and of persecution in this life by criticizing or questioning the so called ulema.
Maybe you think I am stubborn but the question keeps coming back to me wether we can rule out completely the possibility of a woman being pregnant without having intercourse or even without tissue from another human being.
To make my point clear I want to place the question out of the sphere of the person of Maryam (Salaam is with her). What I write is not meant to offend or to disrespect her in any way.
At this point in time we know that scientists are able to artificially make a woman pregnant by fertilizing egs with male spermatozoa without sexual intercourse.
This way they can even make a woman be pregnant with fertilized egs that are not hers.
The question here is not about the ethics of what scientists are doing but only concerns what humans are able to do through scientific advancements.
The parthenogenesis from the former post, though within mammals and their chromosomal system could under normal circumstances only give female offspring, has been artificially made possible in that way by scientists, or the news articles from Nature and other reports must be lies.
You refer to the laws of physics stating that the Creator won't change these, but reproduction and biological life involves so much more than the laws of physics (that we cannot claim to know completely), and even with all the scientific advancements we can't really comprehend the complexity of life, all variations, the secret to the 'miraculous' phenomenon that life is.
There are many occurences of 'abnormalities', mutation, genetic variations, mutations ...
"42:50 Or He bestows both males and females, and He leaves infertile some according to His laws. He is Knower, Omnipotent."
Male and female fusion in one living human being also ?
"That Divine Law translates into science as below:
- The ovaries of all women produce ova that have only X
- The sperms of all men are about 50% X and the rest 50% Y.
- If a Y chromosome from the man joins the ovum from the woman, the
result is XY, a baby boy.
- If an X chromosome from the man joins the ovum from the
woman, the result is XX, a baby girl.
- Therefore, the sex of the fetus is determined from the husband’s side."
That doesn't give an explanation for people who have X(0) instead of XX or XY, or who have XXX... or XXY or XYY ...
Or people who have sexual characteristics of both male and female, in whatever variation and wether visible or invisible inside their body.
The phenomenon occurs and though very rare, and even more rare that they can reproduce, some 'female hermaphrodites' can become pregnant.
Given these former points, can we completely rule out the possibilty of a woman having functional female sexual organs and functional testicular tissue inside her body?
Again, because we have no 'scientific' report or observation at this point is no proof for impossibility.
The following site even states a hypothetical scenario of possibility:
'U.S. National Library of Medicine
The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical
and genomic information.'
'Med Hypotheses. 2010 Nov;75(5):448-51. Epub 2010 May 7.
Self-fertilization in human: having a male embryo without a father.
[Self-fertilization may also occur in human. A scenario is presented here for a woman to have a son without a father]
Department of Histology and Embryology, School of Medicine, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, 06018 Etlik
Ankara, Turkey. firstname.lastname@example.org
Chimeras are the result of fusion of two zygotes to form a single embryo, producing an individual with genetically different kinds of tissue. If the fused zygotes are of different sex, the individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissues. The majority of these people are best reared as females and many pregnancies with living offspring have been reported in persons reared as females, and several cases has fathered a child. During ovulation, a negative pressure occurs in the lumen of the oviduct and it produces a vacuum effect which has made several pregnancies possible in subjects lacking an ipsilateral ovary by allowing the transperitoneal migration of oocyte from the contralateral gonad. Self-fertilization was reported in many flowering plants, in a kind of fish and in a case of rabbit. They have both eggs and sperms in their body and at fertilization, one sperm cell fuses with oocyte to form an embryo. Self-fertilization may also occur in human. A scenario is presented here for a woman to have a son without a father: she is a chimera of 46,XX/46,XY type resulting from the fusion of two zygotes of different sex types and she develops both ovary and testis in her body. Since XX cells tend to gather on the left side while XY cells on the right, she develops an ovary on the left side with a oviduct and a testis on the right side located in an ovarian position with no duct. Müllerian duct regression on the right side is mediated by the antimüllerian hormone derived from the ipsilateral testis and testosterone secreted from Leydig cells does not prevent the regression of the Wolffian duct. Therefore, neither an oviduct nor an epididymis and vas deferens is present next to the testis on the right side, and lumens of a well-developed rete testis have an open access to the abdominal cavity allowing the sperms to be picked-up by the contralateral oviduct. Both gonads are functional and produce spermatozoa and oocyte respectively after puberty. At the time of ovulation, estrogens increase the motility of the oviduct on the left side which results in a negative pressure in the tube and oocyte and sperms are picked-up into the tube with the help of this vacuum effect, taking both gametes to the fertilization site in the oviduct. Since the sperm contains a Y chromosome, this fertilization gives rise to a XY male embryo.'
To return to the artificial impregnation by scientists: If humans are able to do this artificially, why wouldn't ALLAH be able to make this happen ?
How can we humans assume that a phenomenon or result that we can only achieve through technological or artificial means could never occur or happen without our technology?
How can we be sure that all technology or scientific advancements we consider new or recent are really new and haven't been present before in some earlier form or that people before us had no knowledge we don't have or that we have lost?
Allah can also make us forget what we once knew.
'In the Name of Allah'
'In time We will show them Our Signs in the utmost Horizons and within themselves, so that it will become clear to them that this Qur'an is indeed the Truth. Is it not enough for them to know that your Lord is Witness to all things (including this proclamation)?'
Now I take that to also mean that some verses or revelations will get more clarification in time or through the course of time.
So that's why I want to be cautious not to jump to a conclusion and to stick to that conclusion while there may be more than what I was thinking or realizing until now or more than I am able to know or comprehend at this time.
I am not saying your interpretation cannot be right or really close to the true meaning, or that I am sure that your interpretation is wrong.
I am only researching other possibilities.
May ALLAH increase our knowledge