The Qur'an and the Apocryphal Gospels of Infancy

[Theophilos78]

THE ANALYSIS OF THE QUR'AN IN THE LIGHT OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS OF INFANCY

Surah 19:19,21 vs. Surah 3:45

In the Qur'an the first account of Jesus' birth is given in Surah 19, which belongs to the Mecca period.

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. (Surah 19:19 Pickthall)
He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. (Surah 19:21 Pickthall)

According to this first narrative, the angel/messenger of the Lord visits Mary and announces the birth of a son from her. Interestingly, Mary does not know how she will name the son that will be born of her since her visitor deprives her of this information. The narrator of Surah 19 gives the name of Mary's son in verse 34 while making comments on Christian tenets and rebuking Christians for calling Jesus the Son of God:

Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. (Surah 19:34 Pickthall)

Thus, the account of annunciation and Mary's delivery in Surah 19 does not contain the name Jesus.

However, in Surah 3 the story of Jesus' birth is once more related with variations, and this time the angels visiting Mary tell her that her son will have the name Messiah Jesus:

(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah). (Surah 3:45 Pickthall)

(Note that the so-called angelic message in Surah 3 goes redundant as it tells Mary that Mary's son will be called Mary's son!)

Here comes the question: why is this difference? Why in Surah 19 Mary was not told the simple and basic name of her son whereas in Surah 3 she was revealed even the redundant information about her son's name/s?

It is not easy for us to solve the mysteries and decipher the cryptic references of the Islamic scripture unless we discover its ties with the apocryphal writings that Muhammad copied from while devising his book.

The two narratives about Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an (Surah 19 and Surah 3) were derived from TWO distinct and independent non-canonical Gospels of Infancy. The source of the account in Surah 19 is the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew whilst of that in Surah 3 is the Gospel of James.

The source of Surah 19: The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

According to Pseudo-Matthew's narrative, Mary was visited by a MAN of ineffable beauty while she was sewing something:

Again, on the third day, while she was working at the purple with her fingers, there entered a young man of ineffable beauty. And when Mary saw him, she exceedingly feared and trembled. And he said to her: Hail, Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And when she heard these words, she trembled, and was exceedingly afraid. Then the angel of the Lord added: Fear not, Mary; for you have found favour with God: Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and shall bring forth a King, who fills not only the earth, but the heaven, and who reigns from generation to generation. (Pseudo-Matthew chapter 9)

Muhammad heard about this story and decided to adopt it into Surah 19. Note the similarities:

And took a veil to shroud herself from them: and we sent our spirit to her, and he took before her the form of a perfect man. She said, I fly for refuge unto the merciful [God, that he may defend me] from thee: If thou fearest [him, thou wilt not approach me]. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. (Surah 19:17-19)

Muhammad's plagiarism from Pseudo-Matthew is evident. He said that a messenger visited Mary in the form of a perfect man and that Mary was exceedingly afraid of him: this was what had been written in Pseudo-Matthew! However, Muhammad failed to understand why the account in Pseudo-Matthew talked about a veil and associated it with Mary right in the account of the annunciation. Muhammad only said that Mary took a veil, and Muslim commentators thought it was a veil that helped Mary seclude herself from people. Actually, it was the veil of the TEMPLE! Mary was working at the veil of the Temple when she was visited by an angelic messenger. Pseudo-Matthew made this clear in the previous chapter of his Gospel although that detail escaped Muhammad's notice:

For they cast lots among themselves what each virgin should do, and the purple for the veil of the temple of the Lord fell to the lot of Mary. (Pseudo-Matthew chapter 8 )

Now let's get back to our primary question: why the name of Mary's to-be-born child is given by the angels during the annunciation in Surah 3 although it is not given until Surah 19:34, which comes right after the reference to baby Jesus' miraculous speech from the cradle.

The answer is simple: Muhammad copied the narrative of the angelic annunciation from Pseudo-Matthew ( as we have displayed above), and the visitor's prediction in that particular text did not include any information on this issue. This was most likely because the writer of this apocryphal Gospel claimed to be Apostle Matthew and did everything to sound credible when he attributed his book to Matthew. In oder to achieve parallelism with the canonical Gospel of Matthew, he had to teach that the birth and name of the child were announced to Joseph by an angel in his dream. Compare the following:

And when he was thinking of rising up and hiding himself, and dwelling in secret, behold, on that very night, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in sleep, saying: Joseph, you son of David, fear not; receive Mary as your wife: for that which is in her womb is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son, and His name shall be called Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. (Pseudo-Matthew chapter 11)

While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:18-21)

Since Muhammad's version did not include the section of Pseudo-Matthew quoted above, but only the first and last angelic visitation narrated in Pseudo-Matthew chapter 9, it is not surprising to see that the name Jesus is missing from the account of Mary's visitation by a messenger in Surah 19.

Further, the narrative in Surah 19 gives the name of Mary's son as Jesus in verse 34 right after the verses that refer to Mary's son's miraculous speech from the cradle. In order to discover why the name Jesus appears in the 34th verse of chapter 19, we must first remember that Surah 19:29-30 were plagiarized by Muhammad from another apocryphal Gospel: the Arabic Gospel of the Savior's Infancy. Let's compare and contrast the following parts:

We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world. (Arabic Gospel of Infancy chapter 1)

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 (Surah 19:29-30)

Obviously, Muhammad borrowed this miraculous incident and incorporated it into Surah 19 after drastic textual modifications. The interesting point is that in the first chapter of the Arabic Gospel, Jesus is overtly called the Christ/Messiah. However, Muhammad did not understand until after his migration to Medina that the word Christ was a title ascribed to Jesus. Consequently, he did not include it into the Meccan chapters making references to Mary's son. He did not have to care about this either, for in the peculiar part he copied from the apocryphal Gospel in Arabic, Mary's son identified Himself as Jesus, not as Christ. Muhammad inserted the name Jesus into verse 34, where he criticized Christians for calling Jesus the Son of God right after the reference to baby Jesus' miraculous speech.

The source of Surah 3: The Gospel of James

In Surah 3, however, Muhammad forgot about the previous narrative about Mary and Jesus in Surah 19 and gave a contradictory account. This was because he plagiarized from the Gospel of James while creating the story in Surah 3 after his migration. To compare:

(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

And behold an angel of the Lord stood before her saying: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace before the Lord of all things, and thou shalt conceive of his word. And she, when she heard it, questioned in herself, saying: Shall I verily conceive of the living God, and bring forth after the manner of all women ? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary, for a power of the Lord shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Highest. And thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Gospel of James chapter 11)

Unlike Surah 19, Surah 3 identifies Jesus as a word from Allah because the Gospel of James did so unlike the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Similarly, unlike the narrative of the annunciation in Surah 19, the narrative of the annunciation in Surah 3 includes the name Jesus because the writer of the Gospel of James followed Evangelist Luke when he said that the angel announcing to Mary told her the name of her to-be-born son (see Luke 1:31) unlike Pseudo-Matthew, who inserted the name Jesus only into the account of the annunciation delivered to Joseph. The more we find out the differences between the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and that of James, the more we can understand why the narrative about Mary and Jesus in Surah 19 is different from that in Surah 3.

It must be noted that Muhammad did not only copy from these apocryphal Gospels of Infancy, but also distorted the information given in them. This is why it is natural to see differences between the original versions of the stories and Muhammad's false copies. For example, it is written in the Gospel of James that the angel visiting Mary only said that the child to be born would be called JESUS, which is more accurate than the information given in Surah 3:45 since Mary did not call her son the Messiah or Son of Mary! Muhammad simply added those words while distorting the apocryphal text. As he repeatedly called Jesus “the Son of Mary” in most of the chapters and mistakenly thought that the title Christ (al-Masih) was Jesus' second name, he rushed to attach them to the name Jesus even in the account of the angelic annunciation. This proves that Muhammad was not only a reckless borrower, but also a blind one that made mistakes due to his strategy of perversion.

Theophilos

[Theophilos78]

Tafsir (Traditional Islamic commentary on the Qur'an) proves Muhammad's plagiarism from the non-canonical Gospels of Nativity and Infancy!!!

Muhammad’s heavy plagiarism from the non-canonical Infancy Gospels and his tampering with the original chronology of the events in these writings are mostly reflected in the traditional Islamic commentaries. In a few cases, Muslim commentators testify to Muhammad’s plagiarism from such Christian writings when they try to give additional information and thus aim to clarify the vagueness of some narratives in the Qur’an with the help of further transfer from the same sources, but these additional stories are not exempt from Muhammad’s modification of the time of events. For instance, while commenting on Mary’s conception and pregnancy in Surah 19, Ibn Kathir reports the following information:

Muhammad bin Ishaq said, "When she conceived him and filled her water jug (at a well), she returned (to her people). After this, her menstrual bleeding ceased and she experienced what the pregnant woman experiences of sickness, hunger, change of color and there was even a change in the manner of her speech. After this, no people came to visit any house like they did the house of Zakariyya. …"

Muhammad bin Ishaq had to refer to Mary’s filling her water jug and associate it with her conception because he was most likely aware of the following verses in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:

And on the second day, while Mary was at the fountain to fill her pitcher, the angel of the Lord appeared to her, saying: Blessed are you, Mary; for in your womb you have prepared an habitation for the Lord. For, lo, the light from heaven shall come and dwell in you, and by means of you will shine over the whole world. (Pseudo-Matthew Chapter 9)

However, he changed the original chronology of this incident by presenting it as an event happening after Mary’s visitation by the angel and her conception. In short, Muhammad bin Ishaq imitated Muhammad bin Abdallah in terms of not only copying material from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, but also distorting its chronological settings.

In some cases, particularly when there are differing opinions and reports about a Qur’an verse, some commentators again give answers that are affected by and partly compatible with the information given in Pseudo-Matthew’s Gospel. For example:

(And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date palm.) This means that her pains of labor compelled her to go to the trunk of a date-palm tree that was at the place where she had secluded herself. The scholars differed over its location. As-Suddi said, "Her place of seclusion was to the east and that was where she would pray at the Sacred House of Jerusalem." Wahb bin Munabbih said, "She ran away and when she reached an area between Ash-Sham and Egypt, she was overcome by labor pains."

The only reason for a reference to an area close to Egypt in the tafsir above is the fact that in Pseudo-Matthew Chapter 20 Mary’s journey to Egypt is recounted. Of course, in the original narrative the reason for this journey is not Mary’s miraculous conception, but her leaving Israel because of King Herod’s wish to kill infant Jesus. Since Muhammad changed the order of events, he had to bind Mary’s departure to her conception and her sitting under a palm tree to her delivery! This drastic change in the original chronology of the events made the new version of the story in Surah 19 baffling and almost meaningless. Why did Mary’s time of being in labor necessarily coincide with her getting close to a palm tree? Where was that palm tree? Did being in labor make Mary hungry and thirsty? Did she have no food with her? Although Mary did not say that she was tired or hungry, why did Allah choose to provide for her fresh fruit and water? How could Mary shake a palm tree while in labor??? The narrative in the Qur’an fails to answer all these questions.

Another example concerns the source of the voice comforting Mary at the time of her delivery and heralding the miraculous provision of food and water for her:

The scholars of Tafsir have differed over the interpretation of who was calling out. Al-`Awfi and others reported from Ibn `Abbas that he said, (Then cried unto her from below her,) "This is referring to Jibril because `Isa did not speak until she brought him to her people." Similarly, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak, `Amr bin Maymun, As-Suddi and Qatadah all said, "Verily, this is referring to the angel Jibril. " This means that he (Jibril) called out to her from the bottom of the valley. Mujahid said, (Then cried unto her from below her,) "This is referring to `Isa bin Maryam." Likewise, `Abdur-Razzaq reported from Ma`mar that Qatadah said that Al-Hasan said, "This is referring to her son (`Isa)." This is also one of the two opinions reported from Sa`id bin Jubayr -- that it was her son, `Isa, speaking.

Some scholars insisted that the voice belonged to Jesus because the original form of the story in Pseudo-Matthew attributed both the voice and the performance of this miracle to infant Jesus:

Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend your branches, and refresh my mother with your fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed. And after they had gathered all its fruit, it remained bent down, waiting the order to rise from Him who had commanded it to stoop. Then Jesus said to it: Raise yourself, O palm tree, and be strong, and be the companion of my trees, which are in the paradise of my Father; and open from your roots a vein of water which has been hid in the earth, and let the waters flow, so that we may be satisfied from you. And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to come forth a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling. (Pseudo-Matthew Chapter 20)

Some scholars, on the other hand, made efforts to replace infant Jesus with Gabriel because they knew that Jesus’ speaking in the bosom of her mother before or at the time of Mary’s delivery would seem abnormal in the Qur’an narrative. In other words, they were probably aware of the change Muhammad applied to the time of this event in Pseudo-Matthew and that this distortion would necessitate the attribution of the voice to someone else than infant Jesus. The only alternative they could come up with was Gabriel, whom they oddly claimed to have talked to Mary from beneath her! Why would Gabriel do that?

Taken from the article entitled "Unravelling a Knot of the Qur'an" http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/19_37_mystery.html

[Bowman]

THE ANALYSIS OF THE QUR'AN IN THE LIGHT OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS OF INFANCY

Surah 19:19,21 vs. Surah 3:45

In the Qur'an the first account of Jesus' birth is given in Surah 19, which belongs to the Mecca period.

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. (Surah 19:19 Pickthall)
He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. (Surah 19:21 Pickthall)

According to this first narrative, the angel/messenger of the Lord visits Mary and announces the birth of a son from her. Interestingly, Mary does not know how she will name the son that will be born of her since her visitor deprives her of this information. The narrator of Surah 19 gives the name of Mary's son in verse 34 while making comments on Christian tenets and rebuking Christians for calling Jesus the Son of God:
Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. (Surah 19:34 Pickthall)

Thus, the account of annunciation and Mary's delivery in Surah 19 does not contain the name Jesus.

However, in Surah 3 the story of Jesus' birth is once more related with variations, and this time the angels visiting Mary tell her that her son will have the name Messiah Jesus:
 
Theophilos

Not exactly, brother…

Contextually, there is absolutely no rebuking of Jesus’ deity, as we can see here…





ما كان لله أن يتخذ من ولد سبحنه إذا قضى أمرا فإنما يقول له كن فيكون

Ma kana lillahi an yattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu

19.35   That was to “allah” that he takes of a Son, glory be to Him when He issued a decree, commanded, so only truly His, He says: "Be you.” So He has been.


This ayah demonstrates yet another Koranic example of the Son having the ability to create with His powerful word.

[Theophilos78]

Not exactly, brother…

Contextually, there is absolutely no rebuking of Jesus’ deity, as we can see here…





ما كان لله أن يتخذ من ولد سبحنه إذا قضى أمرا فإنما يقول له كن فيكون

Ma kana lillahi an yattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu

19.35   That was to “allah” that he takes of a Son, glory be to Him when He issued a decree, commanded, so only truly His, He says: "Be you.” So He has been.


This ayah demonstrates yet another Koranic example of the Son having the ability to create with His powerful word.

Which Qur'an translation are you using? Surah 19:35 has a negative marker:

It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. (Pickthall)

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (Yusuf Ali)

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Hilali-Khan)

It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is. (Shakir)

It does not befit the Majesty of ALLAH to take unto Himself a son. Holy is HE. When HE decrees a thing, HE says to it, `Be, and it comes into being.' (Sher Ali)

It does not befit GOD that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is. (Khalifa)

It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is. (Arberry)

God could not take to himself any son! celebrated be His praise! when He decrees a matter He only says to it, 'BE,' and it is. (Palmer)

It beseemeth not God to beget a son. Glory be to Him! when he decreeth a thing, He only saith to it, Be, and it Is. (Rodwell)

It is not [meet] for God, that he should have any son: God forbid! When he decreeth a thing, he only saith unto it, be; and it is. (Sale)

Ma kana lillahi an yattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu (Transliterated Arabic)

[Bowman]

Not exactly, brother…

Contextually, there is absolutely no rebuking of Jesus’ deity, as we can see here…





ما كان لله أن يتخذ من ولد سبحنه إذا قضى أمرا فإنما يقول له كن فيكون

Ma kana lillahi an yattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu

19.35   That was to “allah” that he takes of a Son, glory be to Him when He issued a decree, commanded, so only truly His, He says: "Be you.” So He has been.


This ayah demonstrates yet another Koranic example of the Son having the ability to create with His powerful word.

Which Qur'an translation are you using? Surah 19:35 has a negative marker:

It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. (Pickthall)

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (Yusuf Ali)

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Hilali-Khan)

It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is. (Shakir)

It does not befit the Majesty of ALLAH to take unto Himself a son. Holy is HE. When HE decrees a thing, HE says to it, `Be, and it comes into being.' (Sher Ali)

It does not befit GOD that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is. (Khalifa)

It is not for God to take a son unto Him. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He but says to it 'Be,' and it is. (Arberry)

God could not take to himself any son! celebrated be His praise! when He decrees a matter He only says to it, 'BE,' and it is. (Palmer)

It beseemeth not God to beget a son. Glory be to Him! when he decreeth a thing, He only saith to it, Be, and it Is. (Rodwell)

It is not [meet] for God, that he should have any son: God forbid! When he decreeth a thing, he only saith unto it, be; and it is. (Sale)

Ma kana lillahi an yattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu (Transliterated Arabic)

"Ma" is not a negative in this verse, as determined by its context which is positive.

[ialmisry]

THE ANALYSIS OF THE QUR'AN IN THE LIGHT OF THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS OF INFANCY

Surah 19:19,21 vs. Surah 3:45

In the Qur'an the first account of Jesus' birth is given in Surah 19, which belongs to the Mecca period.

He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. (Surah 19:19 Pickthall)
He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. (Surah 19:21 Pickthall)

According to this first narrative, the angel/messenger of the Lord visits Mary and announces the birth of a son from her. Interestingly, Mary does not know how she will name the son that will be born of her since her visitor deprives her of this information. The narrator of Surah 19 gives the name of Mary's son in verse 34 while making comments on Christian tenets and rebuking Christians for calling Jesus the Son of God:
Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. (Surah 19:34 Pickthall)

Thus, the account of annunciation and Mary's delivery in Surah 19 does not contain the name Jesus.

However, in Surah 3 the story of Jesus' birth is once more related with variations, and this time the angels visiting Mary tell her that her son will have the name Messiah Jesus:
 
Theophilos

Not exactly, brother…

Contextually, there is absolutely no rebuking of Jesus’ deity, as we can see here…





ما كان لله أن يتخذ من ولد سبحنه إذا قضى أمرا فإنما يقول له كن فيكون

Ma kana lillahi an yattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qada amran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu

19.35   That was to “allah” that he takes of a Son, glory be to Him when He issued a decree, commanded, so only truly His, He says: "Be you.” So He has been.


This ayah demonstrates yet another Koranic example of the Son having the ability to create with His powerful word.

The Son doesn't have a Word, He is the Word.

Your use of maa doesn't make sense.

[Bowman]

The Son doesn't have a Word, He is the Word.

The Son is the Word by which the Universe was created.

Even the authors of the Koran understood this.

 

Your use of maa doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, and correctly fits the classic Arabic definition.

[ialmisry]

The Son doesn't have a Word, He is the Word.

The Son is the Word by which the Universe was created.

Even the authors of the Koran understood this.

It is painfully obvious that they did not.

 

Your use of maa doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, and correctly fits the classic Arabic definition.

Care to cite some authority on that construction?

[Bowman]

The Son doesn't have a Word, He is the Word.

The Son is the Word by which the Universe was created.

Even the authors of the Koran understood this.

It is painfully obvious that they did not.

They why repeatedly mention the Son in creation ayat if He had no part in it?

 

[ialmisry]

The Son doesn't have a Word, He is the Word.

The Son is the Word by which the Universe was created.

Even the authors of the Koran understood this.

It is painfully obvious that they did not.

They why repeatedly mention the Son in creation ayat if He had no part in it?

It argues Christ is created and therefore not a Son.

[Theophilos78]

"Ma" is not a negative in this verse, as determined by its context which is positive.

I must repeat my question:

Which English translation are you using?

Even the context of the verse makes it clear that the author of the Qur'an did not like the use of the title Son of God. This objection is repeated quite often in the Qur'an. For instance:

They say: "(God) Most Gracious Has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth A thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready To burst, the earth To split asunder, and The mountains to fall down In utter ruin, That they should invoke A son for (God) Most Gracious. (Surah 19:88-91 Yusuf Ali)

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! (Surah 9:30 Pickthall)

[Bowman]

 It argues Christ is created and therefore not a Son.

False.

The Koran, just like its source, the Holy Bible, never states that the Son was created.

In fact, the authors of the Koran proclaim that Jesus always existed.

[Bowman]

"Ma" is not a negative in this verse, as determined by its context which is positive.

I must repeat my question:

Which English translation are you using?

I use my own renderings as gleaned from the past 15 years of studying the classic Koranic Arabic.

Further, I can show complete reasoning for my renderings...unlike people who use other's renderings.

Even the context of the verse makes it clear that the author of the Qur'an did not like the use of the title Son of God. This objection is repeated quite often in the Qur'an. For instance:

They say: "(God) Most Gracious Has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth A thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready To burst, the earth To split asunder, and The mountains to fall down In utter ruin, That they should invoke A son for (God) Most Gracious. (Surah 19:88-91 Yusuf Ali

The Son brings the End Times



وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا لقد جئتم شيءا إدا تكاد السموت يتفطرن منه وتنشق الأرض وتخر الجبال هدا أن دعوا للرحمن ولدا وما ينبغي للرحمن أن يتخذ ولدا

Waqaloo ittakhatha alrrahmanu waladan laqad ji/tum shay-an iddan takadu alssamawatu yatafattarna minhu watanshaqqu al-ardu watakhirru aljibalu haddan an daAAaw lilrrahmani waladan Wama yanbaghee lilrrahmani an yattakhitha waladan

And they said: "The most merciful he has taken a Son.  Truly You came, a disastrous thing.”  The heavens are well nigh (to) burst from Him and the earth she cleaves asunder and then later the mountains fall down into pieces violently with noise.  That they called to the most merciful a Son.   And that it is convenient to the most merciful that he takes a Son.   19.88 – 92



Contrary to popular Islamic thinking, these ayahs actually proclaim Jesus Christ as the “convenient” Son by first quoting what they said “qaloo”, and then shifting to the singular destruction which Jesus Christ brings during the end times as He opens the Seven seals of Revelation.

[Bowman]

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! (Surah 9:30 Pickthall)

A more correct rendering of these ayahs…


وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصرى
المسيح ابن الله ذلك قولهم بأفوههم يضهءون
قول الذين كفروا من قبل قتلهم الله أنى يؤفكون اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبنهم أربابا من دون الله والمسيح ابن مريم وما أمروا إلا ليعبدوا إلها وحدا لا إله إلا هو سبحنه عما يشركون

Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi thalika qawluhum bi-afwahihim yudahi-oona qawla allatheena kafaroo min qablu qatalahumu Allahu anna yu/fakoona ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona


And they said the Jews flogged “allah's” Son with the utmost vehemence, and they said the Christians, The Messiah, “allah's” Son, this, their word with their mouths, they resemble Word whom they disbelieved from before, “allah”, he killed them, when they are turned away.  They have taken their learned persons and their monks (as) lords from superior (to) “allah” and The Messiah, Mary's Son; and they commanded not except that they may worship one god, no god except He, glory be to Him from what they associate partners.   (9.30 – 31)



These ayahs are merely wholesale copied from the Holy Bible….up to, and including, the proclamation that Jesus Christ is deity.

How did this happen…?

[Theophilos78]

A more correct rendering of these ayahs…


وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصرى
المسيح ابن الله ذلك قولهم بأفوههم يضهءون
قول الذين كفروا من قبل قتلهم الله أنى يؤفكون اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبنهم أربابا من دون الله والمسيح ابن مريم وما أمروا إلا ليعبدوا إلها وحدا لا إله إلا هو سبحنه عما يشركون

Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi thalika qawluhum bi-afwahihim yudahi-oona qawla allatheena kafaroo min qablu qatalahumu Allahu anna yu/fakoona ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona


And they said the Jews flogged “allah's” Son with the utmost vehemence, and they said the Christians, The Messiah, “allah's” Son, this, their word with their mouths, they resemble Word whom they disbelieved from before, “allah”, he killed them, when they are turned away.  They have taken their learned persons and their monks (as) lords from superior (to) “allah” and The Messiah, Mary's Son; and they commanded not except that they may worship one god, no god except He, glory be to Him from what they associate partners.   (9.30 – 31)

These ayahs are merely wholesale copied from the Holy Bible….up to, and including, the proclamation that Jesus Christ is deity.

How did this happen…?

This happened only in your world of fantasies because you fabricated these verses. 

[Bowman]

A more correct rendering of these ayahs…


وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصرى
المسيح ابن الله ذلك قولهم بأفوههم يضهءون
قول الذين كفروا من قبل قتلهم الله أنى يؤفكون اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبنهم أربابا من دون الله والمسيح ابن مريم وما أمروا إلا ليعبدوا إلها وحدا لا إله إلا هو سبحنه عما يشركون

Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi thalika qawluhum bi-afwahihim yudahi-oona qawla allatheena kafaroo min qablu qatalahumu Allahu anna yu/fakoona ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona


And they said the Jews flogged “allah's” Son with the utmost vehemence, and they said the Christians, The Messiah, “allah's” Son, this, their word with their mouths, they resemble Word whom they disbelieved from before, “allah”, he killed them, when they are turned away.  They have taken their learned persons and their monks (as) lords from superior (to) “allah” and The Messiah, Mary's Son; and they commanded not except that they may worship one god, no god except He, glory be to Him from what they associate partners.   (9.30 – 31)

These ayahs are merely wholesale copied from the Holy Bible….up to, and including, the proclamation that Jesus Christ is deity.

How did this happen…?

This happened only in your world of fantasies because you fabricated these verses. 

You can do better than this....can't you?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: The Qur'an and the Apocryphal Gospels of Infancy