Islam and Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr.Ruggerio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t believe that **the first part **of my analysis is still going on 😃

Finally, it is noteworthy that some scribes made Mary and Jesus level with worthless idols in the late Medina period of the Islamic Scripture. According to a verse in the 5th chapter, Mary and Jesus are likened to idols that can do nothing on their own. Thus, the Islamic scribes fail to distinguish Jesus and Mary from worthless idols of the nations although they are believed to be close to God:

005: 76. Say: Serve ye *in place of Allah *that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor use ? Allah it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower.

Now compare this with the verse referring to the golden calf most Israelites worshipped in the desert:

20: 88-89. Then he produced for them a calf, of saffron hue, which gave forth a lowing sound. And they cried: This is your god and the god of Moses, but he hath forgotten. See they not, then, that it returneth no saying unto them and **possesseth for them neither hurt nor use ? **

Muslims would still contend that Mohammed said similar things about himself so as to prevent Arabs from worshipping him:

010: 106. And cry not, beside Allah, unto that which cannot profit thee nor hurt thee, for if thou didst so then wert thou of the wrong-doers.

Still, Mohammed likened himself to an idol so as to avoid turning into an idol whereas Jesus and Mary - according to the Quran - could not help becoming equal to idols. Indeed, Mohammed likens Jesus and Mary to wortless things that cannot be helpful or hurtful certainly because he aims to blame Christians and make false associations between paganism and Christianity.

This is the end of the first part of my analysis. Soon I shall be back to write the second part and answer the question: “Why is Joseph missing from the Quran?” Wait for me 😃

Peace & blessings to all seeking the truth to embrace it…
 
Salaam;
I have to say that I am puzzled by the amount of ignorance which is going on here from the part of some posters!

Joseph.
 
Joseph_Alison said:
Salaam;
I have to say that I am puzzled by the amount of ignorance which is going on here from the part of some posters!

Joseph.
Click to expand...
I am puzzled by the assertions of ignorance with no examples and explanations supporting them.

Scott
 
Why do you put so much emphasis on M having access to the apocryphal texts as the basis for the Koran’s Mariology since:
  1. We was allegedly illiterate and spoke classical arabic only.
  2. Even if he somehow had access to the text of the apocrypha and could read and translate them, they were no doubt written in Koine Greek, which pretty much was defunct by the 7th century. In the 7th century, medieval greek was being spoken.
  3. There were no translations of the apocrypha in classic arabic at the time of M (highly likely).
 
err–he was illiterate (kinda like the writer of this post here) heh heh
 
Mr.Ruggerio said:
Why do you put so much emphasis on M having access to the apocryphal texts as the basis for the Koran’s Mariology since:
  1. We was allegedly illiterate and spoke classical arabic only.
  2. Even if he somehow had access to the text of the apocrypha and could read and translate them, they were no doubt written in Koine Greek, which pretty much was defunct by the 7th century. In the 7th century, medieval greek was being spoken.
  3. There were no translations of the apocrypha in classic arabic at the time of M (highly likely).
Click to expand...
Hmm thats a good question…
 
Mr.Ruggerio said:
Why do you put so much emphasis on M having access to the apocryphal texts as the basis for the Koran’s Mariology

because what he took ARE from apocryphal gospels. I posted a thread about this, if you want i can post it for you.
since:
  1. We was allegedly illiterate and spoke classical arabic only.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mr.Ruggerio said:
Why do you put so much emphasis on M having access to the apocryphal texts as the basis for the Koran’s Mariology since:
  1. We was allegedly illiterate and spoke classical arabic only.
  2. Even if he somehow had access to the text of the apocrypha and could read and translate them, they were no doubt written in Koine Greek, which pretty much was defunct by the 7th century. In the 7th century, medieval greek was being spoken.
  3. There were no translations of the apocrypha in classic arabic at the time of M (highly likely).
Click to expand...
Can you put forward another explanation for the presence of apocryphal stories in Mohammed’s book? We have two options before us: either to accept that he copied from fake Christian literature or believe that those writings were the part of the original revelation from Allah!

I do not think Mohammed lived alone and away from other people, nor did he devise the Quran by himself. You cannot have access to a book, but this does not mean that you cannot have access to the people knowing that book and telling stories therein. Mohammed travelled a lot (because of his job) and met many Christian people to talk over religious issues. Keep in mind that one of those Apocryphal Gospels had been written in Arabic, and the other stories were memorised by Arabic Christians who delighted in reading and recounting non-canonical stories to praise Mary and Jesus. (Those Gospels were not heretic!)

Peace to you,

Angelos
 
Here I am 😃

JOSEPH & ISLAM

It is uncanny not to see Joseph (Mary’s husband) in the Islamic Scripture. Even though Mohammed’s book recounts Mary and Jesus’ stories in a few chapters, it almost ignores Joseph, who is said to be Mary’s husband and Jesus’ foster father in the Canonical Gospels. (The so-called genuine Gospel of Barnabas - the only partially Islamic Gospel- talks about St. Joseph, and this proves that the writer of this fake Gospel did not know the Quran excluded Joseph from Mary’s story!)

The reason underlying Joseph’s absence from the Quran might indicate the Islamic scribes’ unfamiliarity with the authorized Gospels of the New Testament, which I previously pointed out as the major cause of Mary’s exaltation with Jesus in the sense of being His partner in every way. First, I should remind you that the Quran contains two contradictory infancy narratives, both of which surprisingly leave Joseph out. This is different from what we have in the two Synoptic Gospels. To remember, Matthew relates the infancy narrative from Joseph’s perspective whilst Luke from Mary’s. Thus, it is not contradictory or weird to have two different accounts in two different Gospels since the person to whom the annunciation is declared is not identical. In the Quran, however, the same glad tidings are delivered to the same person (Mary) in two totally different ways. The first account of annunciation is in the early period of supposed revelations, and this account naturally differs from the account in Luke’s Gospel. Apart from the main difference in the identification of the child “ a Sign from Allah” - through the deletion of the phrase “Son of the Most High” in Luke – there’s an odd statement added to Mary’s question in Luke. Compare the following:

Luke 1:34. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Quran 19: 20. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been a harlot ?

The key word that explains the primary aim of the authors of the Quran is definitely “harlot”. The Mary in the New Testament does not need to remind the Angel that She is not *a harlot *because Her virginity (knowing no man) entails the impossibility of Her being a prostitute! Nevertheless, the Quran puts this weird statement into Mary’s mouth most probably because Mohammed rewrites this story not only to repudiate the association between Jesus’ miraculous birth and His divine personality but also to rebut the Jewish assertion that Mary’s child was illegitimate. This claim portraying Mary as a harlot that sleeps with a Roman soldier to beget Jesus was not known during Jesus’ lifetime since none of the Gospels record that either Mary or Jesus was exposed to such an accusation and libeling campaign. On the contrary, some accounts in the Gospels demonstrate that some Jewish leaders sneered at Jesus when He talked to them of His divine (celestial) origin because they knew Joseph as Jesus’ *biological *father. Consequently, Joseph’s marriage with Mary was a part of God’s plan in Matthew and Luke since that marriage became the sign of Mary’s moral purity and prevented Her from the accusations and assaults of the Jewish nation.

In the Quran, on the other hand, there was no place for Joseph primarily because Mohammed based the story of Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ nativity on his daily disputes with the Jews of his era. Thus, the account in the Quran eventually lost its authenticity and historicity since it was devised to show Mohammed’s personal reaction to the claims put forward about Mary’s moral impurity by his contemporaries of Judaism. This is why the story in the 19th chapter of the Quran unexpectedly focuses on Mary’s virginity and not being a harlot by highlighting the reaction of Mary’s folk to Her pregnancy prior to marriage and the child she bore:

19: 27-28. Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.

to be continued… 😃
 
continuing…

In short, the Mary of Mohammed’s imagination encounters the hostility and accusations of her folk (Jews) due to Jesus’ miraculous conception. This, interestingly, bears similarities to Abraham’s story related in the same chapter right after Mary and Jesus’ account. According to the Quran, Mary withdraws Herself from Her family to choose seclusion. After this separation with no good reason stated in Mohammed’s scripture does Allah send His Spirit to Mary in human form to predict Jesus’ nativity. Mary, again with no good reason, goes to a distant place to give birth to Jesus:

19: 16-17. And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, and had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.

19: 22. And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place.

Abraham, too, withdraws Himself from His father and His tribe, and Allah gives Him two sons: Isaac and Jacob (in this early period neither Mohammed nor his scribes knew that Ishmael was Abraham’s first son and Jacob was Abraham’s grandson!):

19: 48-49. I shall withdraw from you and that unto which ye pray beside Allah, and I shall pray unto my Lord. It may be that, in prayer unto my Lord, I shall not be unblest. So, when he had withdrawn from them and that which they were worshipping beside Allah, We gave him Isaac and Jacob. Each of them We made a prophet.

The main theme of both Abraham’s and Mary’s story in the Quran is the traditional view that Allah’s chosen ones always face accusations and are threatened with persecution by those knowing nothing about Allah’s plans and revelations. Now it is easy to infer that the Mary in the 19th chapter is a result of Mohammed’s desire to make associations between the Jews of his era and the Jews of Mary’s time as well as adapt Her story to Abraham’s on the basis of unbelievers’ ignorance and resistance to the supposed truth.

It is crucial to state that Allah does not forsake the Mary in the Quran to the hands of Her doubtful and slandering nation although that Mary has no husband named Joseph when Jesus’ birth is manifested to Her people. To solve this problem and save their Mary, the authors of the Quran replace infant Jesus with Joseph by representing Him as His mother’s sole protector and defender against the Jewish nation condemning Her. In this context, the cause of the first miracle infant Jesus performs in front of Mary’s folk is His speech in the cradle, which was adopted by Mohammed’s scribes from an apocryphal Gospel of Infancy in Arabic. The authors of the Quran make infant Jesus speak in the cradle so as to acquit Mary in the first place. Thus, Jesus’ miraculous speech is directly connected with Jews’ allegations against Mary’s purity:

19: 28-30. O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ? He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet.

to be continued…
 
continuing again :o

Besides, Mohammed’s scribes deem it necessary to silence Mary so that Jesus’ speech can suffice to acquit His mother. As a result, Allah asks Mary not to speak with people when they question Her about the newborn child, which brings this story closer to Zechariah’s speechlessness at the beginning of the 19th chapter:

19: 26. So eat and drink and be consoled. And if thou meetest any mortal, say: Lo! I have vowed a fast unto the Beneficent, and may not speak this day to any mortal.

19: 10. He said: My Lord! Appoint for me some token. He said: Thy token is that thou, with no bodily defect, shalt not speak unto mankind three nights.

Strikingly, baby Jesus speaks to defend His mother against the Jews, but what He says targets the main tenets of Christianity. This proves that Mohammed considers Mary and Jesus equal in terms of lacking something, speculating that Mary’s being without a husband is misunderstood by Jews whilst Jesus’ being without a father is misunderstood by Christians. Thus, he finds a perfect way of criticizing Jews and Christians alike and brings up these supposed misunderstandings to authorize his new religion.

The fact that Mohammed could not separate Mary from Jesus is also apparent in a radically anti-Judaic verse in his scripture. Actually, he does not forget to include Jews’ assertions about Mary’s impurity into the list of malicious deeds mirroring their disbelief:

004: 155-156. Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened - Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few, and because of their disbelief and of their **speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny; **

Surprisingly, this verse is ensued by a few sentences denying Jesus’ passion and death:

004: 157. And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, **Jesus son of Mary, **Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Clearly, Mohammed delights in the idea of imposing a malediction on Jews not only because of their mistreatment of the prophets, but also because of charging Mary with adultery. In this case, Mary in the Quran is used to speed up Mohammed’s anti-Judaic sentiments and propaganda.
 
I hope this is my last post today :rolleyes:

The second infancy narrative in the Quran astonishingly describes a different Mary that is dedicated by Her faithful and righteous parents to God’s service in the Temple. In contrast to the other Mary in the 19th chapter that is afraid of the Angel appearing to Her and goes to a distant place after conceiving Her son, this Mary is familiar with Angelic hosts as a result of being in God’s Temple all the time and receiving food from Allah:

** 003: 37**. And her Lord accepted her with full acceptance and vouchsafed to her a goodly growth; and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah went into the sanctuary where she was, he found that she had food. He said: O Mary! Whence cometh unto thee this (food) ? She answered: It is from Allah. Allah giveth without stint to whom He will.

The major difference between this Mary and that in the 19th chapter is that this one never faces the accusations of Her folk and does not remind the Angels that She is not a prostitute:

003: 47. She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me ? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

The reason for this major difference between these two accounts is that the narrative in the 3rd chapter was copied almost word for word from the *Apocryphal Gospel of James *known as Protevangelium. This Gospel follows the Canonical Gospels in refuting the idea that Mary was accused of committing adultery when she gave birth to a son although she was not married. Nonetheless, this apocryphal Gospel claims that it was Joseph who was accused of defiling a virgin taken from the Temple since the story identifies Joseph as the male guardian of Mary’s purity and commitment to the service of God. The Quran, copies everything from Protevangelium, but deliberately leaves Joseph out of Mary’s story. There’s only a vague reference in the Quran to Mary’s consignment to a male guardian, but the authors of the Quran deliberately skip the parts in James’ fake Gospel incorporating Joseph into Mary’s story:

003: 44. This is of the tidings of things hidden. We reveal it unto thee (Muhammad). Thou wast not present with them when they threw their pens (to know) which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor wast thou present with them when they quarrelled (thereupon).

Compare this with James’ Gospel:

IX. 1 And Joseph cast down his adze and ran to meet them, and when they were gathered together they went to the high priest and took their rods with them. And he took the rods of them all and went into the temple and prayed. And when he had finished the prayer he took the rods and went forth and gave them back to them: and there was no sign upon them. But Joseph received the last rod: and, a dove came forth of the rod and flew upon the bead of Joseph. And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself.

This obvious aversion to Joseph in the Quran stems from the fact that in the fake Gospel of James Mary is blamed for defiling Herself and breaking Her vow of virginity despite Joseph’s being Her guardian.More, in Protevangelium both Joseph and Mary are accused, but eventually acquitted. Therefore, the Islamic version of this account does not mention those degrading accusations at all, knowing for sure that even an implicit reference to them would involve the unwanted Joseph in Mary’s story. Accordingly, we cannot hear baby Jesus speak in the cradle to defend His holy mother in this chapter since the authors do not associate that specific miracle with Jews’ allegations, but pertain to it as a simple sign revealing Allah’s Might:

003: 46. He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.

This is just a promise of the Angel, but its fulfillment is not present throughout this chapter of the Quran!

Tomorrow I’ll post the 3rd and last episode of my analysis 😛
 
inJESUS said:
because what he took ARE from apocryphal gospels. I posted a thread about this, if you want i can post it for you.

his illiteracy is always stressed as a proof he did not make up things but if you read tafasir, the word illiterate was explained in many ways. Even in Quran it does not mean illiterate.

Arabic language existed before Muhammad. Waraqa Ben Nawfal, his teacher, used to translate gospels into Arabic and he was not an orthodox Christian.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mr.Ruggerio said:
inJESUS;1663730:
I understand per the Hadith that Waraqa Ben Nawfal could translate from Hebrew into Arabic, not Greek. So, what is your historical reference for WBN being able to translate from Greek ?
Click to expand...
we don’t have much info about him…so we don’t know whether he knew Greek or not. But who said these gospels were originally written in Greek and that they were not translated? one of them was written in Arabic and others in Coptic so i don’t think Greek was the sole language
Click to expand...
 
two points in response
  1. the “we don’t have much info about him” argument cuts both ways. If we don’t have much reliable info on him, then on what rational basis can you rely on him as the source for the Christian stories.
  2. Even if he used the apocryapha, (your borrowing theory) how do you explain the additional allegedly Christian details in the Koran, not present in the cited apocryapha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top