Page 3 of 6

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:41 pm
by Garudaman
& some part of the stories of Mary are legend/folk-tale

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:05 pm
by manfred
Well, not quite...

You misunderstand what the gospel writers tried to do. They wanted not simply write an account of events, in every detail, they wanted to write something that explains their beliefs to others.

Mary is perhaps a good example to see this with.

She is a supporting character in the general narrative, but an important one. First of all, you notice, a lot of things are left out about her, her family background, her appearance, her life style and much more.

We are ONLY told those bits that the writer thought were important.

She is presented as a woman who without asking many questions trusts in God. She endures a unmarried pregnancy trustingly. About the childhood of Jesus, very little is said, again, because it was not seen as vital in the line of of the story. But Mary appears here and there, as someone who is a concerned and caring mother, but also as a woman who knows that her child is special. You yourself found passages to that effect.

She is present at the crucifixion and is devastated... Jesus tells the apostle John to take care of her, shortly before he dies. It is not until after the resurrection that she finally understood the wholeness of the God's plan in Jesus.

But not even this last part is explicit in the gospels. HER understanding is not that important to the gospel writers, YOURS and MINE are.

Mary is presented to us as an example of pure faith in God, the "virgin faith". She believed that God's plan could only be good, even when she stood below the cross and saw her son die in agony. Many would then curse God or ask why her son came to such a terrible end, but she did not. She kept quiet, still holding on to her faith that in the end she will see.

So, no, we don't get told if she had bad teeth of if her sandals were black or brown. We only get told that which the writers of the gospels think are worth mentioning and which we, the later generations, should consider.

Is every detail just perfectly correct? How do I know, I wasn't there. But does t even matter? The Mary of the gospels first a figure to be an example for us. In worrying about irrelevant details, we loose sight of WHY we are told about her at all.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:10 am
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:Is every detail just perfectly correct? How do I know, I wasn't there. But doesnt even matter? The Mary of the gospels first a figure to be an example for us. In worrying about irrelevant details, we loose sight of WHY we are told about her at all.
wow, that's nice actually, but still weird statement for who previously stated :
manfred wrote:As to errors and inconsistencies in the Qur'an we have had hundreds here discussed in detail ... the Samaritan and Moses, the Mary and Miriam confusion,

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:29 am
by manfred
garudaman, the gospels are texts by PEOPLE. Muslims claim the QUr'an is a text by "Allah".

That is the difference.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:12 am
by Garudaman
thats not the point! the point is, whether the Gospel historical or not! why? because you accused the Quran isnt historical using the Gospel!

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:42 pm
by manfred
thats not the point! the point is, whether the Gospel historical or not! why? because you accused the Quran isnt historical using the Gospel!
Oh dear... now, for a start. let's try and be logical...

whatever the gospels are, does that change anything at all that is true about the Qur'an?

What you are saying is like this:

Your wife put too much salt into the soto ayam, and you cannot eat it. Therefore the soto ayam from warung seller must 100% be fine, even though it is a week old and he had heated up many times, and your neighbours had to go to hospital after eating some. Worse still, your wife gave the left-over soto to the seller and he added it to his pot.

The gospels are what they are. I explained it to you. They are "testimonies", and do report historical events AS THE WRITER REMEMBERS them. At he same time the writer wanted to do more than simply write down some events, he wanted to persuade you to share his beliefs.

What you want to believe about their testimony is up to you.

So you say parts of what they say about Mary is wrong, but you do not say what part.

I told you the part in the Qur'an that is wrong: Mary, the mother of Jesus could not be the daughter of Imran. That is just plain nonsense.

And if you find any "nonsense" in any other book, it does not change that.

And you seem to suggest that Allah's intelligence is no higher than those who write other books.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:47 pm
by Eagle
There are no records in scriptures of the past as to who Mary's parents were. The Quran says Mary's mother was married to a man named Imran 3:35.

The claim that this cant be simply because there happens to be the father of another Mary that lived centuries prior in the Bibleb is absurd. As if people within a tribe dont share the same names, or that for example Zechariah is the only prophet to hold that name or that Joseph who is believed by Christians to be Mary's husband was the first man ever among Israel to bear that name? Or was Mary actually married to the Joseph who ruled Egypt? There are many instances within the Bible to corroborate for example Jethro's 7 different names are shared by other people too, some of them were his contemporaries and others came after him. Same thing with Elihu ben Barachel, whose name many people share over different generations for example the prophet Samuel's great-grandfather 1Sam1:1, a brother of the prophet King David 1Chron27:18, a chief of the Manasheh tribe 1Chron12:20 and a descendant of Korah 1Chron26:7.

In her pregnancy, Imran's pious wife vowed to offer what was in her womb to the devotion of God 3:35. She desired a male whom she wanted to follow in the footsteps of the priestly family, living in devotion to God and serving Him in the Temple.
But when she brought forth a female whom she thought wouldnt be able to live up to her spiritual expectations and duties in the Temple, she was explained that her excellence would go far beyond any hopes and desires she had entertained.

God received Mary's mother's prayers for protection and manifested them in the best way; under Zakariya's close guardianship, she was taken care of to develop physically and spiritually. The Arabic uses a beautiful imagery saying literally "her nurturing Lord accepted her with beautiful reception, and made her planted a good planting, and He made Zachariah to take care of her". Mary remained in total devotion to God, mostly practicing worship in seclusion in her own private area of prayers, "almihrab".

A priest's daughter or "Bat-Kohen" is considered unique compared to the other Israelite daughters. A uniqueness due -amongst other attributes such as scrupulous modesty thereby portraying the values of maintaining a life dedicated to holiness- to her inherent ability to cope with above average and even intense levels of spirituality due to her upbringing by a Kohen/priest, whose life is dedicated to God's service.

Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, whose founder was the renowned Harun, she was associated to him with the metaphorical phrase "sister of Harun" by the slanderers 19:27-28. This was to stress the shamefulness of her act in relation to the illustruous names in her family, most relevant to her status as a priest's daughter.

Now regarding the long time discredited orientalist accusation but favorite critic often regurgitated by modern days enemies of Islam, namely that the Quran makes an anachronistic error by mistaking Mary/Miriam Jesus' mother with Mary/Miriam Aaron's and Moses' sister spoken of in the Bible in and who lived long before.

Putting aside the fact that such critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background forget that such phraseologies have always been used by Israelites, including Jesus when he stated that, regardless of time and space Mk3:35"Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother". What these critics need to consider is that, had this been true, why does the verse not depict these Jewish slanderers as resorting to the weigthiest of all arguments by singling out her other alleged brother, Moses who is mentionned in the same sentence together with Aaron, as Miriam's brother in the text from whence the Quran's author supposedly copied from Num26:59? He in addition is the sole prophet who, according to the Jewish tenets of faith up to this day, they must recognize as the greatest of all. Jewish tradition and scriptures repeatedly describe him as having superior authority, prestige and prophetic experience as echoed even in the Quran, and here are those very Jews pointing to Harun instead, a mere support and assistant of Moses, who lacked authority among his people to the point they rebelled against him in Moses' absence and even indulged in polytheism under his watch, with their scriptures even painting him as among the instigaters of the transgression?
The mentionning of Harun instead of the greater names in Mary's alleged contemporary family such as Moses, demonstrates it cannot be speaking of her literal, physical sisterhood but rather to her metaphorical descendency from a specific branch whose founder was Harun, and who had established a cast inside which a woman was supposed to represent the highest standards of chastity and piety through her spiritual devotion and impeccable upringing by a priest.

The final suggestion by those critics that the Quran, had it meant metaphorical descendancy, should have said "daughter of Harun" is nonsensical in that context since the verse also speaks in one breath of her biological parents who have passed away. Had the Quran used "daughter of Harun" instead it would have confused the sentence and implied that Harun was her biological FATHER "O DAUGHTER of Harun! Your FATHER was not an evil human, nor was your mother unchaste". That argument not only is nonsensical syntactically but also shoots down the critics' own argument since it invalidates their claim that the Quran confounded Mary/Miriam (Jesus' mother) with the Miriam who was Aaron's biological SISTER and lived long before.

Also, the Quran speaks of Mary and Jesus as coming after Moses, clearly in a context where countless generations of messengers succeeding eachother seperates them 2:87,3:50,5:43-46,etc which again negates the claim it thought they were all contemporaries due to the supposed mixing of Maryam the mother of Jesus with Maryam the sister of Aaron and Moses mentionned in the Bible. Further, in the Quranic accounts surrounding Moses, Aaron, Jesus and Mary, the circumstances and locations are entirely different for the first 2 and the last 2, and the characters of both groups are never mixed in the same space and time nor do they interract, while they do interract among characters of the same group. For instance, Jesus and Mary are many times interracting, as is the case with Moses and Aaron yet we never see Jesus interracting with Moses or Aaron with Mary. Nor are Jesus and Mary ever seen in the same context and background as Moses and Aaron, and vice versa. Also, the Quran repeatedly speaks of Moses' sister, during the account of his infancy, without ever naming her Mary 20:40. Besides the contexts and timeframes clearly seperating between Moses and Jesus, how could this already grown up "Mary" during Moses' infancy, be the same young Mary to give birth to Jesus many years later?

There simply are too many converging factors, on a macro or micro-level, all indicating that the Quran was perfectly accurate, correct and aware of the usage of the phrase "sister of Harun" and its implications.

More importantly, contrary to Miriam the sister of Aaron and Moses in the Bible from where critics claim the Quran copied from, Mary the mother of Jesus was orphanned very early on per the Quran meaning that her relatives spoken of during her early years and beyond are those of people who have passed away. In 19:28, the slanderers appeal to her parents' righteousness in the past tense, because they have passed away at the time. Because of this, she had to be put under someone elses' guardianship namely the prophet Zakariya. Mary was orphaned so young and abruptly, and her importance to the eyes of the elders of the comunity so great, that her entourage, after casting lots to decide who would be her guardian, still obected and contended with one another 3:44. Such measures would've been useless had her close relatives, such as her alleged brothers Moses and Harun been alive in her early years, even outliving her as stated in the Bible.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:16 pm
by manfred
There are no records in scriptures of the past as to who Mary's parents were. The Quran says Mary's mother was married to a man named Imran 3:35.
Yes the Qur'an says that. But it also says Mary was the sister of Aaron, the brother of Moses:
Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing an unheard mighty thing. O sister of Harun (Aaron)! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor was your mother an unchaste woman." (19:27-28)
So Mary not only had a father called Imran (Amram) but also a brother called Aaron (Harun) ...

So this makes Moses the uncle of Jesus... and just like Mohammed, Jesus went to show his "uncle" his "injeel" who duly mentions it in talk to 70 elders in Sura 7:155-157

Is this before he dealt with the non-existent Samaritan?

I mean the whole thing is so stupid, you could not make it up. And your feeble attempt to explain it away fails on two counts:

a) there are simple too many coincidences to make this plausible.
b) Mohammed's white-wash, equally feeble,contradicts you.
There simply are too many converging factors, on a macro or micro-level, all indicating that the Quran was perfectly accurate, correct and aware of the usage of the phrase "sister of Harun" and its implications.
This is close to Mohammed's lame excuse. First, as people brought the error to the attention of Mohammed, it clearly means it was NOT a recognised usage or metaphor. In ancient times people sometimes said "daughter of" or "son of" is an loose, allegorical way, e.g. the Jews are the "children of Israel" or the "sons of Abraham". But there is not a single example of using "sister of" in this way, in any text. Also, it would invariably point to a MALE ancestor if used in this allegorical way, never a brother or sister.

Finally, you are quite right that there are no reliable sources about Mary's family. The bible is pretty much silent on that, only some later text have some details, which are probably not reliable.

But we know that Mary was from the tribe of Judah, as Luke mentions this, not Levi, as the Qar'an would have it.

It is also curious that Allah remembers Imran's name but not the one of his wife (Yochebed) ... is Allah sexist, like Muslims, and believes that a woman's name is not worth remembering, of is he just plain forgetful?

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm
by Eagle
-There are too many converging factors, on a macro or micro-level, all indicating that the Quran was perfectly accurate, correct and aware of the usage of the phrase "sister of Harun" and its implications.
-The tradition quoted says the ohrase was understood metaphorically by those of the time of Jesus, hence my quote from the NT corroborating this fact
-It would have been nonsensical to say "daughter of", for the clear reasons already given
-There are no Samaritans in the Quran, for the obvious reasons given a few posts back

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:41 pm
by Eagle
The reason why Imran only is singled out is again, simple. The passage speaks of the chosenness of individuals and lineages above the nations of the world in terms of divine favors, which includes prophecy 3:33"Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. Offspring one of the other; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing".

Adam, who was not the first human being, but rather God's first vicegerent according to the precise words in the Quran, was the one who initiated the line of prophethood among the nations. Adam had several sons, at least two 5:27, and hence after the original prophet it was necessary to specify in which line the following prophet came; it was the line leading to the prophet Nuh. Nuh was survived by an unspecified number of offspring following the deluge 37:75-7 but prophethood or special divine favors did not spread to all of them or all their descendants, it was necessary to specify in which line the following prophet came; it was the line going through his descendant Ibrahim.
Because prophethood then ramified and spread among Ismail and Isaac, the 2 sons of Ibrahim, the verse speaks of the chosenness of Ibrahim's household and finally, as an introduction to the story of the blessed Mary and her son the prophet Jesus, the verse discerns one of the lines within Ibrahim's household whose descendants were favored; it was the line running through Imran the father of Mary and grandfather of Jesus.

In contrast to the above, in what sense would it be necessary to add Mary's mothers name. Anyone familiar with Quranic eloquence when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anectodes, knows that its objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details, but rather message telling and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:56 pm
by manfred
Writing the same thing twice does not make it any more true... I already gave you a reply on these points.

But I am amazed that you deny that the Samaritan are not mentioned in connection with Moses.
He [Allah] said, "We have tempted thy people since thou didst leave them. The Samaritan has led them into error." Then Moses returned ...
they [the Israelites] said, "... and we cast them [(gold) ornaments], as the Samaritan also threw them, into the fire." (Then he brought out for them a Calf, a mere body that lowed; and they said, "This is your god, and the god of Moses, whom he has forgotten." ...) ...
Moses said, "And thou, Samaritan, what was thy business?" ...
-- Sura 20:85-88, 95
and all the early tafsir say much the same, here are the Jalalayn:
But those he supposed to be following him had remained behind for He exalted be He said ‘Indeed We tried your people after you that is after your departure from them and the Samaritan led them astray’ so they took to worshipping the golden calf.
It does not matter which you look up, they all mention a Samaritan... Some modern translators, embarrassed bout this, laughably left "Samaritan" untranslated, in the hope it could hide the problem.

It seems only in very modern times, when some secular or Christian scholars examined the Qur'an critically and pointed this out, Muslims invented new "readings" to the text...
it was the line running through Imran the father of Mary and grandfather of Jesus.
:lotpot: Imran was the grandfather of Jesus? Please....

But you say is was a "different" Imran, who by sheer chance also had a son called Aaron (Harun) and perhaps another one called Moses...

and this Moses knew Jesus, of course, because Jesus got "given" from "above" some text now lost called the "injeel" which Moses also knew, because the QUr'an says so.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:59 pm
by manfred
On second thoughts, eagle, given that it is Ramadan, I don;t want to cause you upset, so perhaps we return to this next week, when the fast is over.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:27 pm
by Eagle
The converging factors pointing to the correctness of the pgrase sister of Harun have been explained in an elementary fashion, and none were adressed. Just as is the case concerning the imaginary Samaritan...

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:38 pm
by Eagle
As to the Injil, some say it is the Taarib (conversion and adoption of a foreign word into the Arabic language, without necessarly retaining the original meaning) of the Greek word evangelion/good news (gospel in English). If that is the case, then the Quran only recognizes one among several -canonical or not- gospels as it speaks of "Injil" in the singular, a revelation stamped into Jesus's heart since his infancy 3:3,48,19:30 a source of guidance, admonition, light and wisdom 3:48,5:44,46 verifying the Torah that precedes it 3:50,5:46 while abolishing to the Jews the self imposed restrictions of their man-made soulless traditions, as well as giving glad tidings of a prophet to come after him.

Jesus either put himself into writing or asked his followers to eventually write down (during his lifetime or after the termination of his earthly stay) what was revealed to him since infancy of wisdom, teachings, prophecies, warnings and admonitions 7:157. The same was the case of previous Israelite prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Habakkuk, Iddo and others 2Chr11:2,12:5,15,13:22. Solomon had his wise utterings, that were either put into writing in his lifetime or later, compiled from scattered suppports under the reign of Hezekiah Prov25:1. It thus certainly is an established trend within the line of the prophets of Israel, of which Jesus fully adhered to, to commit to writing, whether themsleves or by others, in their lifetime or later, the revelation bestowed upon them. That reality hasnt escaped the rabbinical commentaries (see for example Rashi on Iddo).

While part of his scripture or what his first followers remembered and compiled, made it in its uncorrupted form into the current Greek compilation of writings called in English the "New Testament", another part did not make it either due to negligence, forgetfulness, or some was discarded and worse yet obscured and tampered with as it did not fit the message, ideas and bias of the unknown Greek writers and later compilers and editors 5:14-15"..those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of..".

The current Greek Testament is in great majority a compilation of writings about Jesus, not of Jesus, and while containing some elements of what was revealed to him, the Injil, is in great majority a combination of texts compiled during great political and religious turmoil, reflecting the bias of its writers. The victorious sect, among many other early conflicting christian sects, that thus became "orthodoxy" did not let any competing texts it could lay hands on to survive, either by physically destroying it or discrediting it and leaving it to disapear with time. And thus, though we know there were radically variant sects even in Paul's day, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious "orthodoxy," who did not win because of their greater adherence to the truth, but their more effective and fortunate politics.

That is why the Quran refers to the Book in the hands of its Christian addressees as Injil in the singular; it only recognizes whatever remains from Jesus' revelation among other multiple canonized scriptures in Christian hands as true.

The Quran similarily alludes to the suhuf/pages of Abraham and to some of the divine verities they contain and share with both the Quran and the Torah 53:36-38,87:18-19. It is also interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam, Malchizedek and Abraham.

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:45 pm
by manfred
Well, please show me an example from literature contemporary to Jesus (or even Mohammed) which uses "sister of..." in this way. And you can call the Samaritan imaginary is you like, but he still gets a mention in connection with Moses in the Qur'an.

Also, is there any other instance in the Qur'an where a person is consistently called daughter [son] or sister [brother] of people which are only wider relatives?

And what about this:
Behold! wife of `Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service ... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" ... "... I have named her Mary ..."
-- Sura 3:35-36
plainly NOT allegorical now, is it? A real child in a real womb, right? do don't say such things about some person who will be born some 1200 years after you are dead, do you?

Just because you find this inconvenient, it isn't going away.

And I know what Muslims mean by injeel, as you say, something "given" to Jesus "from above"... but now lost, conveniently. There is no evidence at all that Jesus ever wrote as much as a shopping list. Does ot not strike you as rather odd that according to Mohammed all "prophets" somehow behaved like he did? All "got given" a "book" of some kind, for example...

But how did Moses get to mention it? Hmmm?

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:05 pm
by Eagle
No such thing as an injeel in Moses time.

The corruption/loss of Jesus' true teachings as implied in the Quran isnt about conveniency. The convoluted history of the Greek Christian texts, as well as of Christianity itself testifies to this. Just as the pattern of the prophets, all of them fpund in the Ishmaelite prophet, among them the pattern of writing their teachings or asking others to do so, is no coincidence but is atttested within the Judeo-christian scriptures and traditions as amply demonstrated. No amount of wiggling will make that reality go away...

The arguments negating the Samaritan translation have been laid plainly and no appeal to popularity will make them go away either. Same is the case concerning the converging factors all pointing to the correctness of the Quran in calling Mary Harun's sister. As to the 3:35 passage, it quotes a woman speaking of the child inside her womb and its delivery. To attempt a parrallel between it and another where no indication is given as to the literal intent, only reveals shallow reading skills.

As to an example of metaphorical sisterhood in the times of Jesus, a quote from the NT was provided

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:18 pm
by manfred
Ok, we now agree that your "sister of" explanation is not viable, good.
No such thing as an injeel in Moses time.
Good. Now try to remember what you said there.

In Surah 7:155-157 we find a prayer/address by Moses and then Allah's response to him (Yusuf Ali's translation):
[7:155] And Moses chose seventy of his people for Our place of
meeting: when they were seized with violent quaking, he prayed:
"O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed,
long before, both them and me: wouldst Thou destroy us for the
deeds of the foolish ones among us? this is no more than Thy
trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou
leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our
Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art
the best of those who forgive.
[7:156] And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and
in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee."
He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy
extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for
those who do right, and practise regular charity, and
those who believe in Our signs;-
[7.157] those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet,
whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law
and the Gospel;
- for he commands them what is just and forbids
them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and
pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure);
He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes
that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour
him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,-
it is they who will prosper."
This passage is rather curious, don't you think...? Moses prays and Allah answers. Does he always answer you? So what does Allah talk about with Moses? Presumably Moses is reporting all this back? About the gospels and also about the "unlettered" prophet... Odd choice of topics?

And Moses, what does he do? Complain that does not have a clue what "injil" is? No, he doesn't. It does not strike Moses at all as odd, does it? He tells the 70 elders "Allah's words", but they should make no sense to him or anyone listening. But not a single, tiny question...

Suppose you could travel back in time, meet Mohammed and told him he will discussed and opposed on the internet by wicked people like someone called "manfred". Would he not ask "what is the internet?" Would he not "what an odd name!"?

So the Qur'an either did not realise this is plain weird, or it assumes that Moses knew this "injil". Well, that would explain the Mary story... Jesus had shown his injil to uncle Moses, right?

There is something else there: Allah, in his response says clearly that the "unlettered prophet" is mentioned "in their scriptures"... Really? Muslims have looked for 1600 years and not found it... how did Allah get it so wrong? Does Allah not know the texts he "handed down"?

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:07 pm
by Eagle
You've put aside the untenable assumption as regards Mary being Harun's sister, as well as the Samaritan translation. This post will be available to anyone as a reminder in case of future memory lapses...

The proposed reading of sura aaraf and consequent assumptions go against the natural flow of the text as well as the well established Quran pattern of injecting parenthetical statements and switching between addressees in order to connect a certain lesson to a particular incident...that is besides the amusing implication that Moses and Muhammad were contemporaries since the tense used is the present in the above highlighted passage..

Moses by the way is one distinctly described, in the Quran as well as the Hebrew scriptures as one with whom God literally conversed, hence the "instant" response..

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:14 pm
by Eagle
If anyone wishes to explore the judeo-christian predictions of the last Ishmaelite prophet, they can open the thread

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:28 am
by manfred
You've put aside the untenable assumption as regards Mary being Harun's sister, as well as the Samaritan translation. This post will be available to anyone as a reminder in case of future memory lapses...
No, I didn't, nor is it an "untenable assumption", it is something plain for anyone to see. Whatever gave you that idea?

As you have no reasonable response, I suggested that you agree with what I said. And where is that quote about "sister of" being used in an allegorical way?
If anyone wishes to explore the judeo-christian predictions of the last Ishmaelite prophet, they can open the thread
If there was any hint of Mohammed in any of the Jewish or Christian texts, you would have pointed that out by now.

And as to Mohammed being an "Ishmaelite", seriously? :lotpot: