Saturday, December 27, 2008

Muhammad, Mary, and Miriam: A Qur'anic Confusion

The Arabic word for "Mary" (the mother of Jesus) is the same as the word for "Miriam" (the sister of Moses and Aaron). If the Qur'an is not the word of God, this confusion might cause problems for Muhammad. Interestingly enough, the Qur'an confuses Mary with Miriam.

Qur'an 19:27-28--"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!"

Notice that the Qur'an refers to Mary (the mother of Jesus) as the "sister of Aaron" (i.e. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron). Even Christians during the time of Muhammad recognized this error, and Muhammad had a chance to respond.

Sahih Muslim 5326--"Mughira b. Shuba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read 'O sister of Harun ["Aaron"]' (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."

So Muhammad's response is that people in the time of Mary would refer to a pious young woman as the "sister of X," where X might be a prophet from 1400 years earlier. The problem is that we have no record of such a practice in first century Israel, and we don't even find it used elsewhere in the Qur'an. The obvious conclusion, then, is that Muhammad simply made a mistake, and that he tried to correct it by making something up.

Two more points are worthy of note in al-Muslim's hadith. First, the Christians of Najran knew nothing of the practice of referring to pious young women as the sister of some prophet, even though they would have been familiar with traditions about Mary. Second, the Muslim who talked to them obviously didn't know that this was a figure of speech, since he was stumped by the refutation and had to go back to Muhammad for an answer. Thus, Christians knew nothing of the practice Muhammad referred to, and Muslims who had been reciting the Qur'an in Muhammad's presence were never told that "sister of Aaron" was a metaphor. Indeed, they only learned this when Muhammad had been accused of erring.

But things get even worse. The father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam was a man named Amram (Arabic: "Imran"):

1 Chronicles 6:1-3--"The sons of Levi were Gershon, Kohath and Merari. The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. The children of Amram were Aaron, Moses and Miriam."

Hence, if Muhammad really believed that Mary the mother of Jesus was the same person as Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron, it wouldn't surprise us to find Muhammad referring to Mary as "the daughter of Imran." Not surprisingly, this is exactly what we find in the Qur'an and the Hadith:

Qur'an 3:35-36--"Behold! When the wife of Imran said: 'O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.' When she was delivered, she said: 'O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!'--And Allah knew best what she brought forth--'And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 3769--"Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: Allah's Messenger said, 'Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Maryam (Mary), the daughter of Imran, and Asiya, the wife of Fir'aun (Pharaoh)."

Note that Mary's mother is called "the wife of Imran." The Qur'an certainly takes the application of this metaphor to an extreme, for now we must assume that there was a first century practice in which a pious woman would be called the "wife" of the father of a prophet!

Thus, if we are to believe Muhammad's explanation for what appears to be a rather obvious error in the Qur'an, we must believe that there was a first century practice in which people would refer to a pious young woman as "the sister of X" (where X was a prophet who died centuries earlier), and as the daughter of the wife of Y (where Y was the father of prophet X), and as "the daughter of Y" (where, again, Y was the father of prophet X). When we combine this with the fact that, by an amazing coincidence, there was indeed a woman named Miriam who was both the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amram, and whose mother was the wife of Amram, we have to wonder why the author of the Qur'an would pass on such a confusing collection of metaphors, with absolutely no evidence that these metaphors were ever used in the first century, and with the only reasonable conclusion being that Muhammad didn't know that Mary and Miriam were two different people, who lived more than a thousand years apart.

79 comments:

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

There are several ways of resolving this so called contradiction. I'll just mention three:

(a) this is not really a contradiction since the association of Jesus’ mother with Aaron was not of Muhammad’s own doing. Muhammad (saw) did not call Mary Aaron’s sister, one of her tribesman did! Therefore, if anyone is at fault, it is the tribesman of Mary.

Just to elaborate on this, consider the following example. I say to Nabeel, "Wood said 2+2=5" to which Nabeel responds "No, 2+2=4. You are wrong Ibn." to which I reply, "I didn't say 2+2=5, David did. I am merely reporting what he said."

(b) All prophets are brothers to each other. This is supported by the story of the Prophet’s Night Journey. During this mysterious travel, he met various prophets, all of whom referred to him as a “brother”. Taking that into account, we have the following argument: Since Mary was a prophetess; she was a sister of all the male prophets, including Aaron. Perhaps the author of the Quran decided to link her specifically to Aaron on account of their Levite relationship.

(c) The Quran simply does not give us the impression that Aaron and Jesus were contemporaries; as such, its author could not have made a mistake as egregious as this. Mary’s link to Aaron, therefore, must mean something else.

I have an answer for the arguments you raised regarding 3:35-36. I'll respond to that later.

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Muhammad (saw) did not call Mary Aaron’s sister, one of her tribesman did!"

Please provide me with any evidence, anywhere, ever, that Mary's tribesmen referred to her as "Aaron's sister." The only reference we have is the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is what I'm challenging. (BTW, your analogy, 2+2=5, implies that you believe that the Qur'an was passing on the false claim of Mary's contemporaries. Here you contradict Muhammad's explanation.)

And we can't ignore the fact that this isn't simply a matter of the Qur'an calling Mary "Aaron's sister," which is false enough. We must add to this the fact that Muhammad referred to her as the daughter of Imran, and as the daughter of the wife of Imran, and that Imran just so happens to be Aaron's father.

You say that "all prophets are brothers to each other." Well, are all mothers of prophets the daughters of the fathers of all other prophets as well? That's the sort of thing you need to rescue the Qur'an here.

Think about this, Ibn. During the time of Jesus, there was a prophet named John the Baptist, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth. Jesus also had a disciple named John, completely different from John the Baptist. Now suppose one day I refer to Jesus' disciple John as "the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth." Wouldn't it be obvious that I had confused the two Johns? Suppose further that you point out my error, and that I respond, "Well, all servants of God are brothers; hence, John the disciple was a brother of John the Baptist, which makes them both sons of Zacharias and Elizabeth."

Would you accept this absurd answer? Wouldn't you accuse me of being deceptive in not admitting my error?

Unknown said...

Wood:Please provide me with any evidence, anywhere, ever, that Mary's tribesmen referred to her as "Aaron's sister." The only reference we have is the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is what I'm challenging.

Since you are seeking to disprove what the Quran presumes to be true, the burden of proof is on you. Nevertheless, it is not entirely implausible that Mary's tribesmen would refer to her as Aaron's sister. I mean if a Jew like Abdullah Ibn Salam(ra) can refer to Muhammad(saw) as Moses' brother (Ibn Ishaq, p.240), why can't the Jews of Mary's tribe call her Aaron's sister?


Wood:(BTW, your analogy, 2+2=5, implies that you believe that the Qur'an was passing on the false claim of Mary's contemporaries. Here you contradict Muhammad's explanation.)

My first attempt did not take into account the hadith you quoted.BTW, how do you know Muhammad(saw) was referring to Moses' brother Aaron? It could some other Aaron, as the eminent commentator Al Razi notes.

Looking at the Quran in which Moses(as) is extolled in so many verses, you would think that if the author confused Mary with Miriam, he would have linked her to Moses, rather than Aaron about whom there are hardly any verses in the Quran. As Geroge Sale remarks, "It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses."

Moreover, the Quran says in Surah 2:87 that Moses was followed up by a number of Prophets, and the Prophet(saw) himself said that there was no prophet between him and Jesus. This shows that neither the author of the Quran nor Muhammad(saw) believed Jesus and Moses were contemporaries.

Wood:You say that "all prophets are brothers to each other." Well, are all mothers of prophets the daughters of the fathers of all other prophets as well?

No because such a preposterous claim is not to be found in either the Quran or Hadith. There is no such Arabic idiom as well. As such, my second point remains uncorrected.

Dk said...

David wonderful job.

Ibn said:

"Since you are seeking to disprove what the Quran presumes to be true, the burden of proof is on you."

Ibn, two mistakes here, one logical, one historical.

Logically the Quran is making the postive assertion, thus the Quran (or those supporting the Quran) must provide the evidence for the assertion made by the Quran.

The burden of evidence is always on the one making the postive claim that such a practise existed.

Secondly, your anachronistic ahistorical claim and attempted justificaiton:

"Nevertheless, it is not entirely implausible that Mary's tribesmen would refer to her as Aaron's sister. I mean if a Jew like Abdullah Ibn Salam(ra) can refer to Muhammad(saw) as Moses' brother (Ibn Ishaq, p.240), why can't the Jews of Mary's tribe call her Aaron's sister?"

Not only is there no evidence of this being a Jewish practise CONTEMPROARY with Mary or the Levites before her but THEN appealing to hadith literature (produced by ARAB Muslims over two centuries after the events they record, hardly reliable) and completely irrelevant time period (the seventh centur) and fabricated example of a Jewish man calling Muhammad the brother of Moses can only be said to be completely and utterly anachronistic in nature to apply such material to Mary her contemporaries and the rest of Jewish history without any evidence whatsoever.

The lengths some people are willing to go...

Ibn you are grasping at straws, I can't see any of your explanations working, it is more likely you are trying to cling onto your responses since you know if one mistake is found in the Quran you will have to leave Islam, and David has produced such a mistake so it is time to be honest with yourself.

Good Day.

Dk

MP said...

DK said: Ibn you are grasping at straws...

He doesn't have any "straw" to grasp in this subject... just a giant mountain of deception...

Dk said...

Ibn even if you could come up with 50 attempted reconcilations of only ONE contradiction, how do we know WHICH reconciliation is the RIGHT ONE, the one that the AUTHOR(s) had in mind WHEN written?

Do we automatically appeal to the most accurate or best reconciliation knowing that the author may not have had that in mind? Or do we go with the one that you think is the best option? This is all subjective.

The simple truth is there is no way to tell, thus it remains a paradox at best, and is simply evidence that Allahs claim of no contradictions is not even provable, since some verses exist in the Quran where the answer is not discoverable, or the simplest explanation is the actual contradiction itself.

Ibn reading your words is VERY similar to reading what a KJVOnlyist to do to fix the problems in his bible.

Anything is possible, the sky is the limits.

Religion can come up with anything to save its own tale, UNFORTUNATELY.

Anonymous said...

Since you are seeking to disprove what the Quran presumes to be true, the burden of proof is on you.

http://shonari.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/circular-reasoning.png

Unknown said...

Dk:Logically the Quran is making the postive assertion, thus the Quran (or those supporting the Quran) must provide the evidence for the assertion made by the Quran.
The burden of evidence is always on the one making the postive claim that such a practise existed.

According to Simon Blackburn's "Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy", the meaning of "burden of proof" is, "If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof." (p.51)

Here, the presumption is Mary was referred to as Aaron's siter. David is seeking to "prove its opposite" i.e. Mary was never referred to as Aaron's siter. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him. As such, I have made no logical error.

Regarding the hadith literature, Dk excreted:produced by ARAB Muslims over two centuries after the events they record, hardly reliable.......completely irrelevant...fabricated, etc.etc.

Your beef is with Wood. He's the one basing his argument on a report from Shahi Muslim which, given your ultra skepticism of hadith literature, you would have to admit is "produced by Arab Muslims over two centuries after the events they record, hardly reliable, completely irrelevant, fabricated."

Dk said...

Ibn again you are caught using circular reasoning.

If you read the definition more clearly you will note:

"IF in SOME SITUATION there is a PROPER PRESUMPTION that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof." (p.51)"

Quoting a philophical usage of the term "Burden of Proof" and then ASSUMING that the very definition you appeal to APPLIES in YOUR CASE and CONTEXT without providing any validation is classic circular reasoning.

Forgeting that for now, you then say my criticism of Hadith applies to David.. This would only be true if David accepted the islamic science of hadith in order to determine historical claims about Muhammad and the first Muslims. (which he doesn't).

However I will assume you do, since you appealed to a hadith in which a Jew refers to Muhammad as a brother of Moses, this criticism applies directly to your beliefs.
But more importantly you missed the main point here which was your ANACHRONISTIC fallacy.

Please reread the prior two posts I made before this.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

this is not really a contradiction since the association of Jesus’ mother with Aaron was not of Muhammad’s own doing. Muhammad (saw) did not call Mary Aaron’s sister, one of her tribesman did! Therefore, if anyone is at fault, it is the tribesman of Mary.

Elijah replies:

I assume that Ibn is referring to:

Qur'an 19:27-28--"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!"

There are a number of problems with this theory and indeed with the passage as well:

Why is Allah narrating an error of this kind without explanation?

If this was tribal error, are we not to conclude then that the Qur'an is not entirely the word of Allah but also that of men?

B said...

Brother Ibn email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

"The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."

Show me evidence for this, or I will conclude that this is just a lame excuse.

El-Cid said...

ibn said: "According to Simon Blackburn's "Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy"...."

I love it when Ibn starts quoting his sources :-)

He seems to be our resident spin-doctor :P

MP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MP said...

Bassam said...

Brother Ibn email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com...

Some christian brothers are already questioning themselves: Will Ibn be silenced?

Fernando said...

I hoppe not... I'me starting to enjoie his postes... a true (at least...) faithefull disciple of mister Yahya Seymour... spining, and spining, and spining... cool...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

My point here was basically that the Qur'an, which supposedly is a pure, verbatim revelation from God, here includes the word of man:

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!"

Now, if the 'produce a Sura like it' challenge applies here, the Muslim truly has a problem.

The bottom line is, whatever defence is brought up by Muslim, the fact remains that these words are of human origin; and in that case the Qur'an is not the pure word of Allah?

Muhammad's explanation if true, only reveals that the word of God is dependend upon the language trends of ancient.

However, since this trend exclaimed by Muhammad to defend the credibility of this revelation of Allah seems to be totally foreign to any historical sources available.

The only person who seems aware of the fact is Muhammad. The question is, can we take is word for it.

In addition this passage in the Qur'an appears unclear and deceptive is begs the reader to misunderstand it.

Why is Allah revealing something so unclear?

And if Allah simply narrates an utterence from the tribe of Mary, why pick out a phrase that would be so unclear to Muhammad's generation?

I am sure the tribe of Mary uttered many other sentences that would avoid this difficulty.

It seems much more of a reliable conclusion that the author of the Qur'an himself misunderstood the information and sources from which he fabricated the Qur'an.




Sahih Muslim 5326--"Mughira b. Shuba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read 'O sister of Harun ["Aaron"]' (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."

Jayman said...

It is worth noting that the Protoevangelium of James, a second century document, claims that Mary's parents were Joachim and Anna and that John 19:25 says Mary had a sister named Mary Cleopas.

ben malik said...

I thought you might find this interesting. I got this tradition from the following article- http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/sister_of_aaron.htm

It is taken from Ibn Kathir.

وَقَالَ اِبْن جَرِير حَدَّثَنِي يَعْقُوب حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن عُلَيَّة عَنْ سَعِيد بْن أَبِي صَدَقَة عَنْ مُحَمَّد بْن سِيرِينَ قَالَ أُنْبِئْت أَنَّ كَعْبًا قَالَ إِنَّ قَوْله : " يَا أُخْت هَارُون " لَيْسَ بِهَارُون أَخِي مُوسَى قَالَ فَقَالَتْ لَهُ عَائِشَة كَذَبْت قَالَ يَا أُمّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِنْ كَانَ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَهُ فَهُوَ أَعْلَم وَأَخْبَر وَإِلَّا فَإِنِّي أَجِد بَيْنهمَا سِتّمِائَةِ سَنَة قَالَ فَسَكَتَتْ وَفِي هَذَا التَّارِيخ نَظَر

It was narrated from Ibn Jarir, narrated from Yaqub, narrated from Ibn U’laya, narrated from Sa’id Ibn Abi Sadaqa, narrated from Muhammad Ibn Sireen who stated that he was told that Ka’b said the verse that reads, "O sister of Harun (Aaron)!" (of Sura 19:28) does not refer to Aaron the brother of Moses. Aisha replied to Ka’b, "YOU HAVE LIED." Ka’b responded, "O Mother of the believers! If the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, has said it, and he is more knowledgeable, then this is what he related. Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years." He said that she remained silent.

(From the Arabic commentary of Ibn Kathir on Sura 19:28, online edition [http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KATHEER&nType=1&nSora=19&nAya=28]; bold, underline and capital emphasis ours)

Anonymous said...

Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years

I always believed it's 1200 years minimum.
Or maybe they used a biblical age of Moses? If they believed that Adam was like really, really tall, they could have also believed that Moses really lived hundreds of years.

David Wood said...

Matthew,

What the passage from Ibn Kathir shows is that, when it came to history, the early Muslims had no clue what they were talking about. Ka'b obviously knew far more than Aisha or Muhammad, and yet even Ka'b was way, way off the mark.

David Wood said...

Does anyone know if there's still a Paltalk debate between Yahya and Nakdimon today?

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

david, the debate will pop off in about an hour.

it will be VERY interesting!

Nakdimon said...

The explanation of Sahih Muslim is totally BOGUS!! In Jewish culture there is no "sister of..." when the one being addresed is generations removed. They are always "daughter of..." or "son of..." but NEVER "sister of...". There is just no such thing. you are always called a child of someone pious, NEVER a contemporary title of someone pious that is generations removed.

it is also VERY interesting that the Qur'an talks about "daughter of Imran and sister of Harun" and not the other way around. The ONLY Miryam in the Bible other than the mother of Yeshua who is the DAUGHTER of Amram and at the same time the SISTER of Aharon is the Miryam of the Exodus. Yet this is the very Miryam that is being addressed.

This is just simply another blatantly false statement about historical facts that Islam fails to get right.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Ben Malik,

The Ibn Kathir commentary is HILARIOUS! To think that the prophet totally missed the mark, someone trying to correct it and then called a LIAR by "the mother of the faithful" when he is totally correct it mindboggling! THAT MUSLIMS STILL BELIEVE THIS STUFF!

Nakdimon

David Wood said...

Suppose that someone who shall remain nameless has only been on Paltalk once and is totally ignorant of how it works. How would I (oops, I mean, "How would this anonymous person . . .") find the right Paltalk room? (I can post the link so people can tune in.)

Nakdimon said...

Well, David, that anonymous person can go click on the button "all rooms" in the main window and then go to the "Social Issues and Politics" section and click on the "human rights" section. There he will find the
"oO The Great Debate Quran or Bible Oo" room where the debate will take place.

You can also search for pal in the menu of the main screen and try to find "NakdimonB52" and he will direct you to the room where the debate will be.

See ya...
Nakdimon

Anonymous said...

What the passage from Ibn Kathir shows is that, when it came to history, the early Muslims had no clue what they were talking about.

That was my point. They did not even know the milennia in which Moses lived.

DAN12345 said...

Hi im new on this blog,i had to post a comment after reading these blogs for nearly a year.It seems to be a muslim you need to believe the most FAR fetched stories and even though evidence is against it,you need to some way find away around it to keep your faith,whereas any normal person would say"wait this is an error" but the muslim doesnt think like this they will actually lie to themselves!They make themselves believe the most far fetched explainations that dont match up with history at all.Now it is the same with their denial jesus's bodily death on the cross:
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-.Now we all know jews would never call jesus Messenger of Allah or son of mary as they would call him son of joseph as jewish custom is to mention the fathers name,especially when they dont believe he is born a virgin.And also they call him christ in this sura!it is amazing the amount of errors in 1 sura! but the muslim doesnt see this

DAN12345 said...

Also this sura doesnt say Jesus DIDNT DIE ON THE CROSS.It says the jews say....then it says they are full of doubt THEY killed him not OR CRUCIFIED HIM.So i believe that aswell,the jews didnt kill jesus or crucify him,the romans did,they carried out the execution so we dont blame the jews at all!Jesus had the power to lay down his life and take it again,as he himself said,so nobody killed him.And it says "Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power,again we believe this,God(The Father)raised him to himself.So if they read carefully they will see the truth in this verse.

Anonymous said...

I think the approach here is interesting. Muslims always try to come up with explanations for the mistakes in the Quran, but if you look at the early sources, it looks like those mistakes really are mistakes.

For example:
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Zwemer/God/chap6.htm

Muhammed had no idea what he was talking about.

Unknown said...

Nakdimon:The explanation of Sahih Muslim is totally BOGUS!! In Jewish culture there is no "sister of..." when the one being addresed is generations removed. They are always "daughter of..." or "son of..." but NEVER "sister of...". There is just no such thing. you are always called a child of someone pious, NEVER a contemporary title of someone pious that is generations removed.


Regarding Muhammad’s explanation, he said people back then used to give names of pious people of old. You may argue that there are no such Hebrew idioms and that, therefore, Muhammad was wrong. Considering myself as a skeptic for the time being; fine, I submit he was wrong. But did Muhammad actually believe Mary was the literal sister of Aaron? No, because there are Arabic idioms in which a descendant of the founder of a tribe can be referred to as the founder’s brother (which actually denotes membership). This shows Muhammad referred to Mary as Aaron’s sister not because he thought they were contemporaries, but because he regarded Mary as a member of Aaron’s tribe, thereby recognizing her as a Levite. So when he said people back then used to give names of pious people of old, he was saying it as an Arab, not necessarily as a Jew. He thought that as the Arabic language is so similar to the Hebrew language, Arabic and Hebrew idioms can be used interchangeably. Hence, the expression “sister of Aaron” cannot be considered erroneous. Even as a skeptic, therefore, I have no good reason to admit that Muhammad committed an anachronistic error.

David Wood said...

Ibn,

Did you just call yourself a skeptic??? Given the answers you've offered on this blog, how in the name of David Hume can you describe yourself as a skeptic???

Unknown said...

Wood:Did you just call yourself a skeptic??? Given the answers you've offered on this blog, how in the name of David Hume can you describe yourself as a skeptic???

I said I was taking the position of a skeptic temporarily. Why don't you focus on my argument rather than on trivialities?

Anonymous said...

Ibn, you haven't given any evidence that this figure of speech was in use.
If there is no evidence, a sceptic would conclude that this was a later invention to hide the mistake.

Unknown said...

Matthew, learn to read.

Fernando said...

Welcome to this Blog DAN12345!!!

DAN12345 said...

Thanks Fernando! Ibn wrote"But did Muhammad actually believe Mary was the literal sister of Aaron? No, because there are Arabic idioms in which a descendant of the founder of a tribe can be referred to as the founder’s brother (which actually denotes membership)."
So if it is arabic idioms why is it not being used always such as here:
"At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!"
-- Sura 19:27-28
Why is it sister of aaron here?and different in another sura:And "Mary, the daughter of `Imran"Sura 66:12
So you cant argue that it is just idiom,as you believe it is allah speaking and why is he referring to the SAME MARY two different ways.It is because the quranic author actually thought she was from Imran!His Real daughter not an idiom.As if it was he wouldnt refer to her as a member of both members of the same family!And when did you start to gloify Imran and attach his name to people.If it was daughter of Abraham or even if the quran said daughter of Ismail,you would have an argument as muslims attach(for as u said idioms in the arabic)ancesters names,surely they would add these major figures instead of Imran and Aaron.As all muslims(and you believe mary was muslim)trace themselves to Abraham(ibrahim)or at least his son Ismail.

Unknown said...

Dan:Why is it sister of aaron here?and different in another sura:And "Mary, the daughter of `Imran"Sura 66:12
So you cant argue that it is just idiom,as you believe it is allah speaking

I wrote my previous post as a skeptic. Considering that the hadith itself makes it clear that Muhammad himself did not believe Mary was a contemporary of Aaron, it is reasonable to conclude that he referred to her in two different ways for contextual reasons. In Surah 19, he called her "sister of Aaron" specifically to indicate her Levitic lineage whereas the purpose of calling her the daughter of Imran in 66 was general.

As for "Imran", I'll simply quote George Sale: From the identity of names it has been generally imagined by Christian writers that the Koran here confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron; which intolerable anachronism, if it were certain, is sufficient of itself to destroy the pretended authority of this book. But though Mohammed may be supposed to have been ignorant enough in ancient history and chronology, to have committed so gross a blunder; yet I do not see how it can be made out from the words of the Koran. For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same whereby it manifestly appears that Mohammed well knew and asserted that Moses preceded Jesus several ages. And the commentators accordingly fail not to tell us, that there had passed about one thousand eight hundred years between Amran the father of Moses and Amrean the father of the Virgin Mary: they also make them the sons of different persons; the first, they say, was the son of Yeshar, or Izhar (though he was really his brother) the son of Kahath, the son of Levi; and the other was the son of Matthan, whose genealogy they trace, but in a very corrupt and imperfect manner, up to David and thence to Adam.

DAN12345 said...

Al-Baqarah 2 87 We gave Musa the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers; We gave 'Isa, the son of Maryam, Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a Messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! Now why is jesus called son of maryram and not son of imran or same as his mother was,if it was an idiom.Allah refers to every person using a different ancestory member?In Sura 19:27-28 it wasnt Allah speaking but some people who were accusing mary so if it was commonplace to use idioms,calling mayram sister of Aaron,then allah says daughter of imran,then to jesus it is son of mary,where is the consistency of this?as a muslim these people accusing mary must have been speaking arabic so why did they use 1 idiom and allah another?
and in Al-Baqarah 2 136
Al-i-'Imran 3 3 Isa isnt named with this idiom,why not?
Al-i-'Imran 3 45:Behold! the angels said: "O Maryam! Allah giveth Thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Al-Masih 'Isa. The son of Maryam, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;"again why are the angels not refering to mary as daughter of or sister of?Allahs language is arabic you believe so where is the consistentcy to your argument,are these arabic speakers just randomly connecting ancestors together to make idioms?

Anonymous said...

Ibn, it always amazes me that sooner or later muslims start insulting people who criticize islam.

You are the perfect example of how muslims should argue to let christians win.

B said...

"Note that Mary's mother is called "the wife of Imran." The Qur'an certainly takes the application of this metaphor to an extreme, for now we must assume that there was a first century practice in which a pious woman would be called the "wife" of the father of a prophet!"

Umm, hello both of the father's were called Imran.

George Sale said:

From the identity of names it has been generally imagined by Christian writers that the Koran here confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron; which intolerable anachronism, if it were certain, is sufficient of itself to destroy the pretended authority of this book. But though Mohammed may be supposed to have been ignorant enough in ancient history and chronology, to have committed so gross a blunder; yet I do not see how it can be made out from the words of the Koran. For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same whereby it manifestly appears that Mohammed well knew and asserted that Moses preceded Jesus several ages. And the commentators accordingly fail not to tell us, that there had passed about one thousand eight hundred years between Amran the father of Moses and Amrean the father of the Virgin Mary: they also make them the sons of different persons; the first, they say, was the son of Yeshar, or Izhar (though he was really his brother) the son of Kahath, the son of Levi; and the other was the son of Matthan, whose genealogy they trace, but in a very corrupt and imperfect manner, up to David and thence to Adam. It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses. (George Sale, The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 38)

Jayman said...

Ibn said, "This shows Muhammad referred to Mary as Aaron’s sister not because he thought they were contemporaries, but because he regarded Mary as a member of Aaron’s tribe, thereby recognizing her as a Levite."

The problem is that the Protoevangelium of James 10.1 says that Mary was a descendant of David, not of Levi.

Ibn said, "He thought that as the Arabic language is so similar to the Hebrew language, Arabic and Hebrew idioms can be used interchangeably. Hence, the expression “sister of Aaron” cannot be considered erroneous."

At the very least you seem to be admitting that an anachronism is the in the Quran.

DAN12345 said...

There is nothing contained in Scripture about the birth of Mary or her parentage, though Joseph's lineage is given in the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. The names of Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna, appear in the apocryphal "Gospel of James", a book dating from the 2nd Century AD, not part of the authentic canon of Scripture. According to this account, Joachim and Anna were also beyond the years of child-bearing, but prayed and fasted that God would grant their desire for a child. So where is it that the name Amrean has come up as the virgin Marys dad.We need to look at our earliest sources and evidence.We see the earliest records say father is Joachim,around 400 years before islam.And where is the evidence of this practise that Mary was to be called sister of Aaron or daughter of Imran in the quran?

Jayman said...

Bassam said, "Umm, hello both of the father's were called Imran."

The Protoevangelium of James states that Mary's father was named Joachim, not Imran. Even if we were to grant that Muhammad did not believe Mary was the daughter of the Amram from Numbers 26:59 we still have a case of the Quran contradicting much older tradition.

DAN12345 said...

And again why not Daughter of Abraham or Ishmael as an idiom,what is so special about Imran and Aaron.Why dont arabs use this today?Today they would say im son of Abraham or sister of Ishmael as that proves their lineage according to muslim belief,same as the Jews when they said to Jesus,Abraham is our Father,they never mentioned a minor prophet when connecting lineage,as when you do this you connect yourself the most IMPORTANT figure in the family tree.If i had 2 brothers 1 Michael Jordan and 1 Mr x,i would always be called brother of Michael Jordan.In the quran Aaron did not stop them making the golden calf,and he was seized and questioned by moses why he held back.So what im trying to say is,they wouldnt mention out of all the prophets Aaron to attach Mary to.

DAN12345 said...

Sahih al-Bukhari 3769--"Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: Allah's Messenger said, 'Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Maryam (Mary), the daughter of Imran, and Asiya, the wife of Fir'aun (Pharaoh)."Also this Hadith posted by David,states her parents where actually Imran and Asiya.So what is the excuse for this hadith,this one must also be a weak and fabricated hadith.....oh well always the case when a hadith comes up that goes against their argument they say,"oh its a weak hadith".

DAN12345 said...

1 more important point when asked by the Christians of Najranm about Mary's parents,Arabic Muslim Mughira Shu'bah did not understand this was an idiom,if it was common practise he should have been able to answer their question,he wouldnt need to go back to Muhammad to get an answer...

Unknown said...

Dan:Now why is jesus called son of maryram and not son of imran or same as his mother was,if it was an idiom.Allah refers to every person using a different ancestory member?

Why is Jesus referred to as Son of Mary rather than as Son of Imran? Because Jesus had no father. He was conceived miraculously and, therefore, was not a descendant of Imran or anyone. However, since he was given birth to by Mary, it is not inappropriate to refer to him as Mary’s son.

El-Cid said...

ibn said: "This shows Muhammad referred to Mary as Aaron’s sister not because he thought they were contemporaries, but because he regarded Mary as a member of Aaron’s tribe, thereby recognizing her as a Levite."

Mary was NOT a Levite. She was a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah. You wouldn't have to come up with such outlandish explanations if you weren't forced into a state of denial by the bizarre things your "prophet" said.

Unknown said...

El Cid:Mary was NOT a Levite

Christian website:"Furthermore in the disputed gospel Luke, the angel Gabriel calls Elizabeth Mary's kinswoman (Luke 1:36), and Elizabeth was a Levite (Luke 1:5). This means that Mary was a Levite"

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Bible_Names.html

DAN12345 said...

Ibn said "Why is Jesus referred to as Son of Mary rather than as Son of Imran? Because Jesus had no father. He was conceived miraculously and, therefore, was not a descendant of Imran or anyone."
This is crazy,every person has a family tree,and this family tree involves the MOTHER and FATHER.Now as he has no father you trace his ancestory through the mother.Now you say the names Imran and Aaron are connected to Mary as idioms as she is from this tribe,so that would also make Jesus from this tribe.Even though Mary was from the tribe of judah really.So what you wrote is not correct saying Jesus doesnt have descendant from anyone,if you believe that you have to believe he was born even more miraculously then we believe.You have to believe he had no mother and father and god just created him,then you can say he has no earthly descendant.Ibn please dont dig yourself into a deeper hole

Unknown said...

Dan:This is crazy,every person has a family tree,and this family tree involves the MOTHER and FATHER.Now as he has no father you trace his ancestory through the mother.

That is still logically implausible. Whose seed was Jesus carrying that we can assign to him an ancestor? It would have been possible to detect the lineage of Jesus if Mary conceived by way of artificial insemination, but both Muslims and Christians vehemently disagree on this.

The Quran provides the best solution to this problem. It says Jesus was like Adam, thereby indicating that both were directly created by God (more so in the case of Adam). Therefore, just as Adam had no father and, consequently, no lineage, so was Jesus.

Unknown said...

Here is a Christian website actually defending the expression "sister of Aaron"

"At verse 28, the text makes a most important observation where it refers to Mary as Sister of Aaron. From Matthew and Luke we are given Christ’s lineage, which is from David in Matthew through to Solomon; and in Luke, through Nathan (see the paper Genealogy of the Messiah (No. 119)). Christ was of the line of Judah and both these lines are of Judah, but in order to fulfil the expectations that the Messiah would be of two advents, the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of Israel, lineage from Levi is required. The Judaic lineages alone would not be sufficient to complete those expectations, which we know were widespread from the writings of the Sons of Zadok. Further, the prophecy in Zechariah 12:10-14 shows that when they look on me; the one they pierced the houses of his lineage appear to be of David through Nathan (v. 12) and Levi through Shimei (v. 13). As Mariam’s cousin, Elizabeth, was wife to Zechariah, high priest of the Division of Abijah, and because of the limitations imposed upon Levites by Numbers, Elizabeth and, probably therefore, Mariam (Mary) would have been full Levite, in the case of Elizabeth and part Levite in the case of Mariam, allowing Zechariah to be fulfilled and Christ to be the Messiah of Aaron and Israel. Far from being an error or a generalised term, the statement is corroboration of this prophecy in Zechariah, perhaps showing that he had also read and understood Zechariah."

http://www.ccg.org/
english/s/p163.html

DAN12345 said...

Ibn said"The Quran provides the best solution to this problem. It says Jesus was like Adam, thereby indicating that both were directly created by God (more so in the case of Adam). Therefore, just as Adam had no father and, consequently, no lineage, so was Jesus."So now you are saying Jesus had no lineage at all???So why would God choose Mary as his mother?To provide lineage!Why wouldnt Allah just make him like Adam then with NO FATHER OR MOTHER?you are changing your tune too much my friend...

DAN12345 said...

Ibn also wrote that "the quran provides the best soultion to this problem"sorry but it isnt a problem for us christians Jesus's lineage,only the quran made problems and muhammad because neither of them had a clue about Jesus's true lineage,so it is a guessing game.We have Aaron Imran Mary in the mix one argument then the next you are trying to say he has no lineage at all.The reason God choose Mary as his Mother and Joseph his step Father was to provide the lineage to David.And you also believe Jesus is the Messiah so that made true the bible when it said the messiah the christ would come from the family of David...

DAN12345 said...

Ibn also provides evidence such as this to support his claim"Further, the prophecy in Zechariah 12:10-14 shows that when they look on me; the one they pierced the houses of his lineage appear to be of David through Nathan" ok so you choose this as evidence to support your case when this verse is talking about jesus's death on the cross,and jesus being pierced was when the nails were inserted into his hands and feet when he was on the cross.So if you are appealing to this kind of evidence you are going against yourself in a big way...

Unknown said...

Dan:So now you are saying Jesus had no lineage at all???

Yes, I don't believe Jesus had any lineage.

Dan:So why would God choose Mary as his mother?To provide lineage!

That is still logically implausible. You need to descend from someone in order to have a lineage. Since Jesus descended from no one because he did not have a biological father (who would have to descend from someone else and so forth), he cannot have a lineage.

Dan:Why wouldnt Allah just make him like Adam then with NO FATHER OR MOTHER?

That's not a question for me to answer. Go ask Allah.

Dan:And you also believe Jesus is the Messiah so that made true the bible when it said the messiah the christ would come from the family of David...

I believe Jesus was the Messiah, but not in the way you believe in him.

Dan:Ibn also provides evidence such as this to support his claim"Further, the prophecy in Zechariah 12:10-14 shows that when they look on me; the one they pierced the houses of his lineage appear to be of David through Nathan" ok so you choose this as evidence to support your case when this verse is talking about jesus's death on the cross,and jesus being pierced was when the nails were inserted into his hands and feet when he was on the cross.So if you are appealing to this kind of evidence you are going against yourself in a big way...

Not really. I posted that excerpt to show that there are Christians who believe Mary was a levite in opposition to the likes of Jayman and El Cid.

El-Cid said...

ibn,

All your musing about Mary's lineage still doesn't help out Muhammad or his Quran one bit, because it does not address the issue of why in Qur'an 3:35-36 & Sahih al-Bukhari 3769 Mary is called the DAUGHTER OF IMRAN.

You have to come up with all these tortured explanations to cover up Muhammad's embarrassing ignorance.

It's as plain as day! Muhammad believed Mary was the biological sister of Aaron & Moses, and the DAUGHTER OF IMRAN (the father of Aaron, Moses, and Miriam).

DAN12345 said...

Ibn said "Yes, I don't believe Jesus had any lineage." Also when i wrote "Dan:Why wouldnt Allah just make him like Adam then with NO FATHER OR MOTHER?"
he responded with
"That's not a question for me to answer. Go ask Allah."
Now the point of me saying this is when creating lineage you need to have a mother and father for lineage to be created,now that is why God chose Jesus to be born from a virgin instead of like Adam,god gave the lineage and made jesus in the line of david as he was to be the messiah from the line of david and a israelite.If god made him from dust like adam he would have no lineage at all,as from nothing becomes born,they are a fresh being with no mother or father so there is no lineage.So how can you say that jesus has no lineage when his mother had,so he will have!My dad is scottish and my mum is turkish do i or dont i have turkish and scottish lineage?So if you say jesus has no lineage you have to then say he cant have a mother,and you have to go even more futher from the truth to cover that saying by then saying mary was not his mother.

Unknown said...

El Cid:All your musing about Mary's lineage still doesn't help out Muhammad or his Quran one bit, because it does not address the issue of why in Qur'an 3:35-36 & Sahih al-Bukhari 3769 Mary is called the DAUGHTER OF IMRAN.

So what? You are presupposing that the Imran being spoken of is Moses' father. This is not so. You would first have to prove that Muhammad believed Mary was a contemporary of Moses as evidence of an anachronistic error in the Quran. As I have established earlier, he did not believe as such.

Dan:Now the point of me saying this is when creating lineage you need to have a mother and father for lineage to be created,now that is why God chose Jesus to be born from a virgin instead of like Adam,god gave the lineage and made jesus in the line of david as he was to be the messiah from the line of david and a israelite.

This statement is self contradictory. If for a lineage one needs to have both a father AND mother, and Jesus had no biological father, then he didn't have a lineage.

Dan:So how can you say that jesus has no lineage when his mother had,so he will have!

Whose seed was he carrying? If you say, for instance, guy X's seed, then you have a case of God artificially inseminating Mary with guy X's sperm. In that case, it is logical to say Jesus had a lineage. However, Jesus had no father. Therefore, he wasn't carrying anyone's seed. The only solution to this, as I noted earlier, is to admit that God created him like Adam and placed him in Mary's womb.

DAN12345 said...

Ibn wrote "This statement is self contradictory. If for a lineage one needs to have both a father AND mother, and Jesus had no biological father, then he didn't have a lineage"
Jesus never had a biological father but his Father on earth was Joseph,of course not his biological father but his Father from birth was Joseph.Now from Joseph Jesus also got lineage.It is not possible to have on jesus's birth certificate for example Mothers name-Mary Fathers-God.That is impossible so to provide lineage(which as Jesus had no earthly father)It comes from Joseph.In Judaism, family lineage is transfered through the father,and To be the Messiah, one must be of the lineage of King David.Joseph was from the line of king David thats how Jesus got his lineage.That is why God gave jesus a stepfather to fulfil prophecy.Also since family lineage is never derived from the mother in judaism,we dont need to worry about her lineage,and you believe Jesus is born without a father,so does that mean to you Jesus has no lineage,which would rule him out of being the Messiah the Christ.No you will again say "oh we dont believe in the messiah the same way as you"ok in what way was Jesus the messiah according to islam,what prophecies did he fulfil in order to become Islams version of the Messiah.You see we believe the bibles criteria for the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled over 360 messianic prophecies,which is why we agree he is the Messiah.And also dont forget allah sent down the torah and incil didnt he,so did Jesus not fulfill these prophecies contained within them?and also i bet you will say the messiah needing to come from the line of David according to the bible is a fabrication or later addition.As muslims always do you use the bible how it suits you.1 verse you cite from it to try and prove your point but when a verse is citied from it which proves our point you say oh it is corrupted,,,,typical.Its like me and you playing a basketball match,one against one.But you are not only a player in this game,you are also the ref.And you are calling fouls,traveling,every call you can think of to make sure you win the match.So even at the end of the match you think you have won,you havent really because you are cheating yourself,not me.

DAN12345 said...

From William Muirs book "THE LIFE OF MOHAMMAD FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES"Quoting from Ibn Hisham and Al Tabari"The hypocrites would persuade you,o' believers! that Muhammad is dead.Nay! but he hath gone to his lord,even as Moses,son of Imran" So why was Moses also called son of Imran.It is plain to see in all of the quran and all of Islamic texts there is only one Imran and that was Moses father and they confused the two Marys it is plain to see.As if it was an idiom to use an ancestory member why would they use Moses own dad to provide his idiom?Because of these facts you go against your own common sense and instead of admitting this gross error and seeing the light you choose to stay in the darkness...islam has a hold of muslims hearts minds and souls,even when all three dont agree with things such as these they will deny it until they are blue in the face.Because if they admit it they are out of islam and they are a apostate,and we all know what happens to apostates in islam....I think Ibn you need to take the Shahadah again as comparing the quran to strands of the rope of the preserved quran surely takes you out of islam.My Muslim friend who is turkish when in turkey he went to visit 5 Imams to get a good explaination on predestination in islam he wanted an answer to satisfy his mind.By asking the question all of them said for questioning islam you are out of islam and he was forced to say the Shahadah again by all of them.So fear holds these great people back,i can see you are very nice person and intellegent Ibn by your posts.But same as all muslims there is not one consistent one.

Jayman said...

Ibn, the Christian website you cited does not make a convincing case that Mary was the descendant of Aaron.

First, the author cites prophecies he thinks Christ needed to fulfill in order to be the Messiah, but this is not the same as actually demonstrating Christ fulfilled those prophecies as interpreted.

He apparently appeals to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sons of Zadok) but these writings are not part of the Bible and their messianic expectations represent one of many contradicting sets of expectations in the Judaism around the time of Christ.

Zechariah 12:10-14 does not say that the pierced one will be the descendant of both Nathan and Levi. Verses 12-14 merely recount the tribes that will mourn him: "The land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves" (NRSV).

Second, Luke 1:36 says that Elizabeth was related to Mary and Leviticus 21:14 instructs priests to marry Levites. Assuming Zechariah followed this advice, Elizabeth was a Levite. However, this information does not tell us about Mary's lineage because we do not know the genealogical relationship between Elizabeth and Mary and also because lineage was determined through the father's line.

Third, the author overlooks Hebrews 7:11-16 which denies that Jesus was a descendant of Levi and Aaron: "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."

Unknown said...

Dan:Jesus never had a biological father but his Father on earth was Joseph,of course not his biological father but his Father from birth was Joseph.Now from Joseph Jesus also got lineage.

Even though he was not Jesus' biological father, you are assigning Joseph's lineage to Jesus? I'm sorry, but that is just silly.

If a Jew adopts an Ishmaelite, will that make the latter a descendant of Isaac?

Dan:Also since family lineage is never derived from the mother in judaism,we dont need to worry about her lineage,and you believe Jesus is born without a father,so does that mean to you Jesus has no lineage,which would rule him out of being the Messiah the Christ.No you will again say "oh we dont believe in the messiah the same way as you"ok in what way was Jesus the messiah according to islam

Good question. Jesus was the Messiah in the sense that he alone was the only Israelite prophet who had the authority to modify the laws which God bestowed upon Israel.

Dan:So why was Moses also called son of Imran

I've already responded to this several times. See my previous posts. I am tired of repeating myself over and over again.

DAN12345 said...

Ibn said "Even though he was not Jesus' biological father, you are assigning Joseph's lineage to Jesus? I'm sorry, but that is just silly."
It isnt silly at all,My friend has adopted a child who was from birth with no father,even his mother had no idea who his father was.Now the baby is being brought up in england.The baby now has british citizenship.The babys stepfather has raised her as his own,the baby is exactly like a british person now after being raised here.So on her family's tree shall we put a big question mark on 1 side?as if we dont know where the dad is from how will we ever know where the child is from?
And just so you know a miracle birth such as Jesus's a lineage is not the same as mine and yours.He had no Father so 1 half he has no lineage,unless you write God on Fathers side.But we dont write God we write on fathers side the man who has been his father on EARTH.Jospeh!
I will try to show you that the normal lineage rules dont apply to jesus(as he is virgin born son of god)If a child was found an oprhan with no mother and father and adopted and grew up in amercia,when he has kids they will be american and even though his lineage will be still unknown,his kids will also be american.So just as Gods lineage is unknown Jesus has had the line of david bestowed upon him by being born in israel with joseph as his step father...which fulfuiled the plan...

DAN12345 said...

"Dan:So why was Moses also called son of Imran"
"Ibn:I've already responded to this several times. See my previous posts. I am tired of repeating myself over and over again."
No i havent had an answer for that one,you started off your argument by saying they are just arabic idioms or hebrew idioms,joining a famous prophet to a name.But why is Moses actually getting connected to his own dad!

DAN12345 said...

George Sale A COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTARY ON THE QURAN:
Al Ghazalis opinion as to the Quran.uncreated or created?
"Al Ghazali seems to have tolerably reconciled both opinions, saying that the Quran is read and pronounced with the tongue, written in books, and kept in memory; and is yet eternal, subsisting in GOD'S essence, and not possible to be separated thence by any transmission into men's memories or the leaves of books;8 by which he seems to mean no more than that the original idea of the Quran only is really in GOD, and consequently co-essential and co-eternal with him, but that the copies are created and the work of man."
So Ibn i would love to think what your fellows muslims think of you describing the quran as a strand of the 7 readings and not as the full rope(the heavenly quran)

B said...

It seems like the main argument here is that since we have no record of Jews using the term "sister" to refer to their ancestors, that is proof that they never did. That sounds like the fallacious "absence of evidence necessarily implies evidence of absence" argument. For all we know the Jews back at those times did do that and Jews just stopped doing it later.

This cannot be proven nor disproven historically. So the Muslim will just give his faith the benefit of the doubt and the Christian just has to find a stronger argument that he can actually prove.

Jayman said...

Bassam, it might be reasonable to withhold judgment on Muhammad regarding first-century Jewish naming practices if we only had a few Jewish documents from the period. In that case the lack of evidence could be explained by the fact that few documents from the period survived. However, we have hundreds of pages of Jewish writings from the period and there is apparently no trace of this naming custom. What explanation can you provide for this lack of evidence? At what point can we say that Muhammad made an historical error?

Unknown said...

Arabs as well as all muslims identify themselves with their father. In the Arabic culture Ibn / Bin means "Son of" and Bint means "daughter of". The mother is nowhere in the picture and is not given any prominence. However we see that in the Quran an entire chapter is dedicated towards Mary the mother of Jesus and Jesus is referred to as the "Son of Mary". Now if muslims should follow the Quran they should identify themselves with their mother and not with their father. If this is not possible then why is the Quran silent on the father of Jesus?

Unknown said...

The commentary replies from our muslim friends here show us the extent to which muslims become bound. Individual muslims are caught up in the much stronger current of organised Islam. They continue to defend Islam for their own sakes, personal reasons. If they were to deny Islam it would bring great personal cost. This is the nature of Islam, it binds its followers into such positions, they know the truth but they cannot freely follow it. They are each like little fish trapped in a much strong current. They need our prayers.

Unknown said...

You know...I say it is not referring to a blood sister relation...and there are two 3 hadith in this matter and for person who says it is referring to blood sister I would like them to show prove me wrong from Aramaic idiomatic usage.

Kepha said...

If the only place in the Qur'an that spoke of Mary as "Sister of Aaron" were 19:28, I could accept the Muslim apologists' explanation that this simply refers to a virtuous and holy female. However, the passages in Al-Imran pretty much clinch it that Muhammad was confused.

yousaf said...

Mother and sister of Moses[edit]
The mother of Moses is the only woman in the Qur'an to receive divine inspiration.[35] God inspired her to suckle the child until she feared for his life and then to cast him into the river without sadness or fear, because God would eventually restore him to her and make him one of His messengers.[36]

"God sent an inspiration to Moses’s mother that she should put Moses in a chest and throw the chest into the river, which would ultimately wash up on the shore of God’s enemy and he would be taken in."

— Qur'an, Sura 28 (Al-Qasas), ayat 7[37]
The chest would ultimately wash up on the shore of God’s enemy and he would be taken in. When the Pharaoh’s wife discovered Moses on the shore, God had to strengthen Moses's mother’s heart to make her a firm believer.[38]

"And the heart of Musa's mother was empty she would have almost disclosed it had We not strengthened her heart so that she might be of the believers."

— Qur'an, Sura 28 (Al-Qasas), ayat 10[39]
Then, after Moses’s sister sees that Moses refuses to nurse with his new nurse, she suggests that Moses’s mother becomes the nursemaid for Moses. In a sense, they were reunited.

"And We had before forbidden foster-mothers for him, so she said: Shall I show you a household who will rear him for you and take care of him? So We restored him to his mother that she might be comforted and not grieve, and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true. But most of them know not."

— Qur'an, Sura 28 (Al-Qasas), ayat 12-13[40]
Wife of Moses[edit]

Truth seeker said...

Allah knew that the true story of the birth of Jesus would be corrupted,so this sura is in the Qur'an to give the true account. Jesus is from the seed of david. we know you cannot pass down your seed without father to son. The quran is not in "error" we are. we have been deceived by Constantine, and the Council of Nicaea. They with their wicked crafty council have taken out the books in the Bible that are the true gospels, and have replaced them with a bunch of feel good stories about god coming down in the form of a man to die for your sins. what flattery! That God would have to come down from heaven, and die for something he created. Get real! you weren't worth it then, and your even worse now! You will have to earn your wings if"you to get them. But how can you earn them when you are still being seduced, by those who got together at the council of nicea and said come let us deal wisely with them. The truth is they have added the so-called four gospel each contradicting the other,to add to their folly they've added a bunch of Epistles/letters filled with their own opinions,and gossip. This was designed, to keep us believing in their fabricated,Jesus/god. This is blasphemy! And they know it even if you don't. But ingnorance is no excuse from your judgement. Peace

Billy said...

This was a pretty good article. I noticed what you are talking about several years ago when I was reading in the koran for a comparison study.
I also ran across a section in the koran in which Muhammad mistakenly thought that Mary was one of the three members of the trinity. I can't remember which sura it was in though. Have you done any articles about that one?