Dear Brother Arif, Jesus’ father is NOT mentioned in Quran. I will explore below that indeed Jesus’ father cannot be found in Quran.
You wrote: “As I said, although prophet Muhammad's(pbuh) father is not mentioned in the Qur-an, we do not argue about whether or not he had father. However, there is clear mention of the father of prophet Jesus(pbh), yet we strongly believe that he did not have a father. In a way we are refusing to accept the truth propounded by the verse, or Quran in general…”
The above is a fallacious argument. To begin with, did anyone ever dispute the fathers of any messengers in the past except Jesus? None. If it is so, why is then there a dispute about Jesus’ fatherhood since his birth? Did he not live among people to dispel and settle this dispute? What is Quran talking about in 19:34?
Your next argument “However, there is clear mention of the father of prophet Jesus(pbh), yet we strongly believe that he did not have a father….”
Where is it “clear” mentioned in 6:88? Nowhere, these are your erroneous assumptions. In fact, Quran is completely going the opposite, whenever/wherever Jesus’ father alluded to in the book.
Your main claim of 6:88 was dealt with previously also, if you missed see it here:
Before I continue, let me analyze this statement of yours: “In the verse 6:88, the Arabic words ".. Wa min aaba ihim." is critical. Let me break down the words: Wa means And, Min means From Aaba means Fathers Ihim means Among theirs. Together it means .. And from among their fathers..”
As per your depiction, the connotation from above is that the phrase “Wa min aaba ihim” in 6:87 is referring to the fathers of all prophets mentioned above. This is a classic case of cherry-picking some words out of context and disregarding the language. The word “Min” is used for at least 13 different ways, see Lughat, for example. The term “Tabeid” is used to denote a usage which means “out of many” or “some among them.” For example, Ibrahim’s father was not guided, thus, it is erroneous to include him in this list. Thus, the phrase would translate to: And some among their …..( I will translate this below).
The Arabic words derived from “hamza bā wāw” are used for forefathers (both paternal and maternal as well as uncles, thus - ancestors), and parents (both mom and dad). For example:
[4:11]: ….And for one's PARENTS (wali-ABAWAYHI), to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children….
In the above, dual masculine noun is used for both parents, mom and dad, same in 7:27, 12:99, etc. The same dual noun is used to indicate two fathers in 12:6, in this case grandfather and grand-grandfather. Thus, context and the construct determines appropriate meanings.
In its plural form to mean both paternal and maternal forefathers - ancestors, it is used extensively. For example 13:23, 40:8, 24:31, 24:61, etc.:
[24:31]: ….. and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers (ābāihinna – BOTH MATERNAL AND PATERNAL grandfathers included), …..
[24:61]: There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses or the houses of your fathers (ābāikum – BOTH MATERNAL AND PATERNAL grandfathers, in fact, ancestors) or the houses of your mothers or the houses of your brothers or the houses of your sisters or the houses of your father's brothers or the houses of your father's sisters or the houses of your mother's brothers or the houses of your mother's sisters or [from houses] whose keys you possess or [from the house] of your friend. There is no blame upon you whether you eat together or separately. But when you enter houses, give greetings of peace upon each other - a greeting from Allah , blessed and good. Thus, does Allah make clear to you the verses [of ordinance] that you may understand.
In fact, Allama Parwez writes in Lughat that the word "A'ba" in Quran is used for ancestors (aaba-o-ajdad, i.e. aslaf). Thus, the correct translation of the word in 6:87 would be “ancestors” to avoid the confusion for English readers. I could stop here but for some other confusions in your post.
Now to 6:87 itself, I have inserted “some” wherever applicable to highlight the use of Tabeid:
[6:87]: And SOME among their forefathers/ancestors and SOME among their descendants and SOME among their brothers - and We chose them and We guided them to a straight path.
Thus, the verse is saying: Not only the above prophets, but also, some of their forefathers/ancestors, some of their descendants, and some of their brothers were chosen by God and guided to the straight path.
Further, the words “ābāihim = ancestors/forefathers/fathers” and “wadhurriyyātihim = descendants” complement each other wherever it is applicable. For example: Some of Yaqub’s descendants are ancestors of some of the prophets mentioned below him including Essa. Thus, your main argument like the one below is untenable:
“Muslim scholars are in jeopardy with this statement from Allah. They desperately try to justify their faith that Jesus(pbh) did not have father. So now they start twisting the meaning and interpretation.”
You wrote: “ … If several other verses suggest that Jesus(pbh) did not have a father, then 'forefather' may be interpreted as ancestors from mother's side. On the other hand, if several verses suggest that Jesus(pbh) have had a father, then use of the word 'forefather' is far fetched and cannot mean ancestors from mother's side….”
It is indeed true ALL VERSES related to Jesus’ birth are clearly leading to one and the ONLY conclusion that he was born without a male father. Bring any verse related to the birth of Jesus that you think just ALLUDE to him having a male father. There is NONE.
You wrote: “At this time I want to emphasize that if Jesus(pbh) did not have a father then the verse 6:88 should not have included his name or should have specifically stated that illa Isa or except Isa….”
Exception class is only needed where some confusion is expected from the reader. Arabic readers know what it is. Both non-Arabic and Arabic can easily understand it without ambiguity if the language, tasreef, and context is kept in mind. The trouble is that most of us are non-Arabic speaking people, looking at the book without due recourse to the language as well as tasreef plus bringing in outside notions to override what verses are saying.
You wrote: “Muslims are more interested to uphold the Biblical statement at the cost of the Quranic declaration!!!”
Great! Pot calling the kettle black. You extensively quoted from Bible under the title “Virgin Birth Fan Club!”, yet you are referring to other Muslims having done so? Please think and ponder.