This section of the forum is NOT for discussions. It is a database of documents, websites, books and other resources, to provide skeptics with the materials to compose their articles refuting Islam. Please place your links in the appropriate thread. If your material needs a new thread, please advise me first. We do not want to clutter this DB with too many threads that may be similar. Do not copy and paste. Give full references and make sure the source is reliable. If you want to rebut any of the documents posted here, use another thread in other sections of the forum.
Jesus' original name was certainly not Arabic — neither the version Esa, found in the Qur'an, nor the version Yasu' used in Arabic Bible translations. His original and therefore true name was Hebrew. The linguistically most appropriate transcription of the Hebrew name Yeshua' into Arabic is Yasu', the very name that has traditionally been used by Arab Christians, probably already before the advent of Islam. Since Esa was not Jesus' original name, it cannot be maintained that it was divinely revealed since that would imply that God revealed a wrong name. Therefore, the name Esa was invented just as Yasu' was invented, the difference being that Yasu' is the linguistically appropriate transliteration of Yeshua', while Esa is not.....
Because of the above stated facts, the following verse presents a real problem, at least to some or even many Muslims: (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah." Sura 3:45.
Stripping the statement from all the various insertions added in by the translators, the message of the angels to Mary allegedly was: "O Maryam! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa, the son of Maryam, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah." Because of this verse many Muslims like Abualrub feel obligated to claim that Esa is the true name of Jesus. After all, that is his divinely revealed name according to the Qur'an!
Historically, it is impossible, but what should or could Muslims do? Somehow the name Esa must be justified if they do not want to admit an error in the Qur'an..... Esau is very different from both Yehoshua' (long form) or Yeshua' (short form of the same name). Thus we are back to square one.
There is no Esa in the Bible, and it was certainly not Jesus' original name.
(Ahmad) Deedat attempted to turn Esau into Jesus by stripping away the letters "J" and "s". In other words, he was playing on the spelling Esau <--> esu, a difference of only one letter. The reader, however, should be able to spot the fatal mistake of playing with English spelling rather than Hebrew. Secondly, Deedat completely forgot that he should be concentrating on the etymological connection between "Esau" and "Yehoshua", i.e., between "hairy" or "red" with "God saves". Given the difference in meaning between these two Hebrew names, the connection is not only less than tenuous, but downright mischievous. It is quite astonishing that Deedat should simply disregard the name Joshua, which is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus.
By the way, the transliterated name of Jesus in arabic Quran is Isa but even this is wrong because the name of Esau, brother of Jacob (Yaqub in arabic) is Isa in arabic. The correct transliterated name of Jesus in arabic is Yasu. Isa (Esau) means ‘hairy’ and Yasu (Jesus) means ‘God saves.’
This error is also found in Edward Lane's lexicon under the name of Eesa. Basically the Koranic Isa is NOT from Hebrew at all, in accordance with almost all of the other biblical proper names given in the Koran. So, in 6.84-86 we read a plethora of proper names -Ishaq, Yakub, Nuh, Isa, Ayub, Yunus, Harun, Sulaiman, Dawoud or/and Zakarīyā, Yaĥya, Ilyāsa, Yasa'a and even Ismā'īl-. None of them from Hebrew or Arabic!
The astonishing common denominator of them all is that they aren't stemming out from their Hebrew roots, nor of Arabic, but Syriac! Syriac, while Hebrew (or Arabic) would be expected! Ibrahim should be written Abu Raheem in Arabic. It's not!
Even Musa is Syriac from Greek: Hebrew: Moshe; Greek: Mōusēs; Arabic: موسىٰ Mūsa! More so the name of Ismael as written, has no Semitic root at all... it's all but Greek!
The case of Isa is even more perplexing, for Jesus is never referred to as Isa, except in the Koran. In Arabic it should be written Yasoo (or Yasu' as in the Arabic bibles), but it's not so: only Isa is...
It certainly tells us that the Koran was written in a Syriac environment... But that alone doesn't solve the Isa vacuum.
We may state with some confidence that taking the number 100 as a unit of the foreign influences on the style and terminology of the Kur'an, Ethiopic would represent about 5% of the total, Hebrew about 10% the Greco-Roman languages about ten per cent, Persian about 5 per cent, and Syriac (including Aramaic and Palestinian Syriac) about 70%.... The proper names of Biblical personages found in the Kur'an are used in their Syriac form. Such names include those of Solomon, Pharaoh, Isaac, Ishmael, Israel, Jacob, Noah, Zachariah, and Mary (examples given inside).... There is not a single Biblical name with an exclusively Hebrew pronunciation in the whole of the Kur'an.
So far as the names Ishmael, Israel and Isaac are concerned we may remark that their deviation from the Hebrew pronunciation is all the more remarkable because in them the author (or the editor of the Kur'an) is running counter to the genius of the Arabic and Hebrew languages to follow that of Syriac. It is well known that the letter of the 3rd pers. sing. of the aorist is both in Hebrew and Arabic a yodh....
Now the pronunciation used in the Arabic proper names mentioned above is that of the Nestorians and not that of the Jacobites. The latter say ishmo'il, isroil and Ishok etc., and not Ishma'il, Isra'il, and Ishak, as they appear in the Kur'an.... By applying the Syriac method of proper names we will be able to throw light on some strange forms of names used in the Kur'an. To express "John" the Kur'an of our days has the strange form Yahya.... In the early and undotted Kur'ans the word stood as which could be read Yohanna, Yohannan... Arabic adopted the erroneous form Yahya.
Solving the 'mysterious' Yahya As far as I know, very few people got it right so far: Yahya is another attribute otherwise translated by our 'The Baptist' stemming from the Mandaeans Yahia Yuhana (The Book of Yahia, Drasha d. Yahia). Iahia Iuhana. In the Mandaean phraseology Iahia, the Baptist, is simply the sign of Pisces. As mentioned in 19.7 this terminology is only for John (Yohanna)! It is stated that the Mandean Iahia was much later than the Koran, but Muhammad himself (or whomever) got it from the former Sabeans! In Hebrew he is Ionah (Jonas): The Fish-man (Pisces).
19.7: We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is Yahya; we have given the same name to none before (him). Conceptual transcription: ''whose surname will be 'The Baptist', a nickname that will only belong to him'' !
The Koranic Yahya doesn't transcribe John but his attribute of 'The Baptist'! John was common, not 'The Baptist'.
Now back to Alphonse Mingana on 'Isa':
So far as the word 'Isa (the name given to Jesus in the Kur'an) is concerned, it was apparently in use before Muhammad, and it does not seem probable that it was coined by him. A monastery in South Syria, near the territory of the Christian Ghassanid Arabs, bore in A.D. 571 the name 'Isaniyah, that is to say, "of the followers of Jesus," i.e. of the Christians.... which is of the end of the sixth, or at the latest of the beginning of the seventh century.
The Mandean pronunciation A 'Iso, is of no avail as the guttural 'é has in Mandaic the simple pronunciation of a hamzah. The Mandean pronunciation is rather reminiscent of 'Iso, as the name of Jesus was written in the Marcionite Gospel used by the Syrians.
So the ONLY indication that we have about Isa is a mention of Isaniyah: the followers of Isa, which is meagre as can be and so is A'Iso!
The Qur’an’s ‘Isa is not an historical figure.... Jesus’ mother tongue was Aramaic. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Jesu (Iesous) in Greek.... Yeshua is itself a form of Hebrew Yehoshua’, which means ‘the Lord is salvation’. However Yehoshua’ is normally given in English as Joshua. So Joshua and Jesus are variants of the same name.... Yeshua of Nazareth was never called ‘Isa, the name the Qur’an gives to him. Arab-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasou’ (from Yeshua) not ‘Isa.
Note: The proper meaning behind Yeshua is rather healing/deliverance thus salvation, or rescued (by God). The Hebrew Elisha אֱלִישַׁע, (Al-Yasa, 6.86) would be more in line with 'God's salvation': SHA. But as written in 2Sam.5.15, Elishua rather means: 'God's opulence'. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... rch=elisha
Shua is a noun meaning "a cry for help", "a saving cry", that is, a shout given when in need of rescue. Together the name would then literally mean, "'God' is a saving-cry," that is, shout to God when in need of help. Another explanation for the name Yehoshua is that it comes from the root ישע yod-shin-`ayin, meaning "to deliver, save, or rescue". According to the Book of Numbers verse 13:16, the name of Joshua son of Nun was originally Hoshea` הוֹשֵעַ, and the name "Yehoshua`" יְהוֹשֻׁעַ is usually spelled the same but with a yod added at the beginning. "Hoshea`" certainly comes from the root ישע, "yasha", yod-shin-`ayin (in the hif`il form the yod becomes a waw), and not from the word שוע shua... although ultimately both roots appear to be related....
An argument in favor of the Hebrew form ישוע Yeshua is that the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 CE) and the Peshitta preserves this same spelling using the equivalent Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ (Yēšū‘) to the Hebrew letters of Yeshua (Syriac does not use the 'furtive' pathach, so the 'a' vowel is not used). This is still the spelling and pronunciation used in the West Syriac dialect, whereas East Syriac has rendered the pronunciation of the same letters Išô‘....
The Arabic name for Jesus used by Christians, Yasū‘, derives from Yeshua. However, the Qur'an and other Muslim sources instead use a traditional Islamic title عيسى `Īsā, which can be transliterated as עִישָׂי () and is similar to the Arabic form عيسو, Isu, of עֵשָׂו ‘Esaw, that is, the biblical patriarch Esau. Some Islamic scholars argue that it derives from the East-Syriac pronunciation Isho‘. However, the Aramaic has the letter ‘Ayin only at the end, whereas the Arabic has its equivalent letter, ‘Ayn, only at the beginning. This sort of transposing of the Aramaic ‘Ayin is linguistically improbable.
Now, the Islamic warring Isa is directly coming out from the Book of Revelations: The forbidden coins of Ibn Malik, noticed the apocalyptic, sworded, Jesus (2nd) Issued in 692 all those coins to be exchanged under the penalty of death in 694!
This warring Islamic Isa is more akin to the figure we know as the Archangel Michael, the celestial army leader... In the Koran he is mentioned in 2.98 but many Muslims hold that 11.69 talks about Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28archangel%29
Over my years at FFI, I had several discussions over the origin of the Koranic Isa, helping to shape my mind:
From years of study and acquaintance with anthropology and etymology, I came to precise the origins of the name 'Isa':
The complete etymological root for Isa has at least three converging factors:
1. The epiteth IUSA given to Horus meaning 'The Ever Becoming Child of Ptah' or even 'The Child-God'. Very old indeed since it was attributed to Horus before the advent of Osiris, replacing Ptah by ~2000!
2. The Phoenician sun-god IES (or Yes): I for The One and ES meaning Fire or Light, ie. The One Light, taking the meaning not exactly of 'God Saves' but of 'God Heals', our YES! The healing power of the sun. This divinity is quite old indeed and only a Phoenician origin can explain the Gaelic Eesu, the Celtic Hesus, the Roman IHS (for Bacchus), up to the Greek Iasthai and their Greek goddess Iaso, or Jason, all of them being always related to healing.
The name Isaias signifies "Yahweh is salvation". It assumes two different forms in the Hebrew Bible: for in the text of the Book of Isaias and in the historical writings of the Old Testament, for example in 2 Kings 19:2; 2 Chronicles 26:22; 32:20-32, it is read Yesha'yahu, whereas the collection of the Prophet's utterances is entitled Yesha'yah, in Greek 'Esaias, and in Latin usually Isaias, but sometimes Esaias. Four other persons of the same name are mentioned in the Old Testament (Ezra 8:7; 8:19; Nehemiah 11:7; 1 Chronicles 26:25); while the names Jesaia (1 Chronicles 25:15), Jeseias (1 Chronicles 3:21; 25:3) may be regarded as mere variants.
Strangely his name isn't mentioned in the Koran while al-Yasa (Elisha) is. Here again, the connection between the Phoenician IES and the Hebrew Isa is stressed while the meaning of Redemption through deliverance/healing (as rescued by God) is underlined.
The same meaning is found in the Hebrew Joshua (pre-exilic form of Yeshua), Jesse, the sect of the Essenes or their Egyptian counterpart, Therapeutae. In the Phoenician Levant and Carthago, IES became Eshmun, the healing child-god. We must remember here that Phoenician is the provable link between the Semitic & Indo-European alphabets (via the half-legendary Cadmus, and the medical emblem of Caduceus).
So it isn't true that the Semitic Yeshua is that different from the Greek Iesous: they both stem out from the same Phoenician root!
The more I study the Koran, the more some basic links with Hinduism appear: Concepts like Jihad, Deen, Retaliation are but the echos of the Hindu Yuddha Dharma, the Vedic Rta and Karma. More troubling still: the Vedic Varuna/Mitra is akin to the Koranic Allah/Isa !!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8394 In a nearby thread I've already explored quite extensively the astonishing connection between the Vedic Varuna and the Islamic Allah. This spread into the cosmic relation between Varuna/Mitra (the Covenant one), protectors and enforcers of the Rta/Dharma in ways that are found in the Koran, hidden yet revealed by the very appellation of 'ISA', which we'll discover to be an attribute like Yahya !
Mitra and Varuna are both lords of the heaven. Together they uphold the law... The watchful twain, most potent, together uphold Rta or the moral order.... Thence they give forth great vital strength which merits praise, high power of life that men shall praise. We are informed from the hymns that Mitra stirs men to action and sustains both earth and heaven. Both Mitra and Varuna are guardians of the world... In the course of time, Mitra came to be associated with morning light, while Varuna with the night sky.
Zoroastrianism rejected Varuna to favor Ahura Mazda, while keeping Mithra as the sun-mediator between heaven and mankind.
These tablets contain the first recorded mention of the name 'Mithra', who, together with the Lord of Heaven, is invoked as the protector of a treaty between the Hatti (Hittites) and their neighbours, the Mitanni. The date of the treaty is somewhere in the fourteenth century BC, and since the latest known reference to the Western Mithras occurs in the 5th century A.D. these tablets show that the god was revered for nearly 2000 years....
I'll probably expand the matter much more in a closing addenda because the Phoenicians/Trojans weren't confined to 'Phoenicia' by far.
Worship of Mitra dates back to at least 1400 BCE in India. He and his twin brother, Varuna, seem to have been among the most important gods of pre-Vedic times. The name Varuna means 'he who covers,' likely a reference to the sky as he is the supreme lord of the cosmos; Mitra is the guardian of cosmic order. In the Vedic pantheon, Mitra is also the sun god who watches over the daylight hours, friendships, and contracts. A good natured deity, he was on far better terms with, and closer to, humanity than his brother.
Though only about a dozen hymns are addressed to them in the Rig Veda, the worship of Mitra spread from India to Persia, where his prominence once again rose. There, he became Mithra, god of light and friendships, guardian and maintainer of cosmic order.
Mitra being mentioned in the Rig Veda makes him among the oldest known divinity, for even 1400BC is way too conservative. The Vedic relation between Varuna (infinite sky) and Mitra (the nourisher sun) is again stressed in the late Vedic Upanishads ! Therein the similitude of Varuna/Mitra becomes that of Pusan/Prajapati, like written in the ISA upanishads (of around ~500).
The name of the text derives from the incipit, īsā, "by the Lord (Isha)".... The Isha Upanishad is significant amongst the Upanishads for its description of the nature of the supreme being (Ish). It presents a monist or non-dual perspective of the universe...
My own translation (excerpts) of the Isa Upanishad:
Whoever sees all beings in the Soul-Self And the Soul-Self in all beings Does not shrink away from This In whom all beings have become One with the Knowing Soul. What repulsion or sorrow is there For the one who breaths Unity? It has fulfilled All there Is.....
Into blind darkness enter those who follow Ignorance; Into greater darkness enter those who follow knowledge. Distinct, they say from becoming: It Is. Distinct, they say from non-becoming: It Is....
He who understands both the Manifest And the Unmanifest altogether Crosses Death through the Unmanifest Attaining Immortality by the Manifest....
O Guardian, Seer; O Path; O sun-child, son of the Creator Spread your Brilliance, gather your Radiance That I shall behold your Auspicious form. Whatever being this Spirit is, let That me Be. I to dissolve into That of Immortal Breath!
There we can read some attributes of Isa: Seer, Sun/Son of the Creator, Light, Spirit, Breath! No doubt: the Koranic Isa is so defined! For we aren't talking about Issa, the Khasmiri saint. Anyway, this is yet a divine surname for some Yuz Asaph (ie. Yusuf the Healer).
Again, as the Word of Allah, Isa is the Spirit of Truth, the Koranic Wisdom to mankind. Like in the Nestorian christology, Isa is an emanation from Allah (His prosopon) much like sunrays and heat come out from the sun. Nestorius precepts became troublesome when translated 'substance' or 'consubstantiality' in Latin, for it's indeed a different subtle meaning. Anyhow, the prosopon concept got into the Koran, but more specifically of an Hindu avatar: Isa is but an avatar (bodily emanation) of Allah.
In Hinduism, Avatar or Avatāra (Sanskrit for "descent" -viz., from heaven to earth-) refers to a deliberate descent of a deity (an incarnation of a deva (god) from heaven to earth, or a descent of the Supreme Being (ie. Vishnu for Vaishnavites) and is mostly translated into English as "incarnation", but more accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation" (like in Docetism)
It then becomes easy to understand that this appearance is what 4.157 talks about: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; ... they slew him not for certain.
Isa wasn't replaced on the cross by a substitution! His bodily appearance vanished, while his Soul-Self went back to God where it belonged.
Isa was unheard of as a human name in Arabia before the Koran... It's a title like al-Masih! Perplexed Islamic 'scholars' came with the idea that is was so written to rhythm with Musa! So we've seen how 'Yahya' didn't mean John but his attribute of 'The Baptist': titles all of them!
By using the very title of 'Isa', instead of the Arabic proper name Yasu', the Koran a priori acknowledges his Covenant. 4.158-159: But Allah took him up unto Himself.... and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.
Then we can understand what 4.171 really talks about... 4.171: The Messiah, Jesus son (Ibn) of Mary, was an Emissary of Allah, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease!
Conceptual transposition (of 4.171): Do not say 'three' (as in the Latin 'substancia') for the Messiah, born Isa son (-abnu-) of Mary, was an Emissary of Allah: His Logos (Kalimatuhu), conveyed into the flesh through Mary, yet FROM His spirit (Ruhun Minhu). So believe in Allah and His messengers (inspired by His Word).
And so we're back to the Hindu Isa and... Mitra/Varuna as explaining the Koranic affiliation of Allah/Isa! We find out that it comes directly from Hinduism, ie. the spiritual dominion of God over the universe.
On this kind of togetherness lies the relation between Allah and Rahman, the Koranic father of Jesus the Isa.
43.45: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshiped beside the Beneficent ? Clearly the verse says that Rahman (Yeshua's father) is to be worshiped like Varuna/Mitra!
If Mitra/Isa was the mediator between godhead and mankind, symbolizing Covenants made in good faith, only this 'appearance' of Isa as a human (the Hindu concept of avatar) explains 4.157 and 3.59 perfectly.
This is considerably strengthened by the fact that ISA wasn't ever a Koranic proper name, but an attribute pertaining to a spiritual/material state, as defined in the Isa Upanishads...
Isa Upanishad, verse VI-VII: Whoever sees all beings in the Soul-Self And the Soul-Self in all beings Does not shrink away from This In whom all beings have become One with the Knowing Soul.
Matthew 22.37-40 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Augustine, Retractions 1.13.3: ''That which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the beginnings of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity...''
From an anthropological point of view Christianity is an agrarian solar worship, rooted in the Hindu/Phoenician Mitra. It introduced the axial concept of Freewill over the former nomadic fatalism: mankind could act from a will of its own!
Next: How Isa, as the son (IBN) of Mary, is yet another attributive compound!
Last edited by The Cat on Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Part -3: Jesus, son of Mary (Isa -ibn- Maryama). Here we must take note that 'son' is always (except once) written from the root Ibn (either abna or abnu). This root is very wide in understanding, going from progeny yet often extended to 'belonging' or 'likeness'. It is from the root ibn (BN) that we have the banu Israel (tribe, nation or children of Israel)...
Looking at some related verses... in chronological order:
A. Before Medina
44th... 19.17: Then We sent unto her Our Spirit (Ilayhā Rūĥanā) and it assumed for her the likeness (mathala) of a perfect man. ---This underlines that Isa's body is only a similitude.
19.19: He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless boy (Ghulāmāan Zakīyāan; immaculate boy).
19.20: She said: How can I have a son (Ghulāmun; boy) when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?
63th... 43.57-58: And when the son (Abnu) of Mary is quoted as an example (Mathalāan), behold! the folk laugh out, And say: Are our gods better, or is he?.... and We made him a example (Mathalāan) for the Children (bani) of Israel. ---The root 'Mathal' express the idea of 'to be like' yet with some authority or power, this 'example' is to be followed! ---''Our gods are better, or is he?'' acknowledges Isa's authoritativeness, although they are 'contentious folks'!
43.59-60: He is nothing but a servant on whom We bestowed favour, and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel. And had We willed (Wa Law Nashā'u, see below on 5.17) We could have set among you angels to be viceroys in the earth. ---Mathalaan is here rendered by pattern, a patron. It confirms Isa as a viceroy on earth in the likeness of Adam (3.59)! (More on this in the following 4th post...)
73th... 21.91: And she who was chaste (Aĥsanat; holy, praised virgin), therefor We breathed into her of Our Spirit (Min Rūĥinā) and made her and her son a token (Āyatan**) for (all) peoples. 74th... 23.50: And We made the son (Abna) of Mary and his mother a portent (Āyatan**)...
**Ayatin (translated: sign, portent, tokens). Means a probing act of creation, in opposition to the signs (6.37) asked by doubters (5.111/4). Could be translated as a manifest miracle, in opposition to an act of human magic or prestidigitation. The differences are underlined in 43.47-48: ''But when he brought them Our tokens (āyātinā), behold! they laughed at them. And every token (Āyatin) that We showed them was greater than its sister.''
The Koran, trees and stars are such signs. On the meaning of Ayatin, 30.20-27 is very informative... up to 30.46: And of His signs (Ayâtihi) is this: He sendeth herald winds to make you taste His mercy (Raĥmatihi)....
30.58-59: Verily We have coined for mankind in this Qur'an all kinds of similitudes (Mathalin); and indeed if thou camest unto them with a miracle ('âyatin), those who disbelieve would verily exclaim: Ye are but tricksters! Thus doth Allah seal the hearts of those who know not.
So Mary being such a portent (miracle) prudishly express the otherwise Immaculate Conception....
Compare to Luke 1.30-35:
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Mary (مريم "Maryam" in Arabic), the mother of Jesus, is considered one of the most righteous women in the Islamic tradition. She is mentioned more in the Qur'an than in the entire New Testament and is also the only woman mentioned there by name. According to the Qur'an, Jesus (Isa) was born miraculously by the will of God without a father. His mother is regarded as a chaste and virtuous woman and is a highly respected figure in Islam. The Qur'an states that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, but that neither Mary nor her son were divine....
According to the Qur'an, Mary's father was 'Imran. The name which in Arabic means prosperity, not only links Mary to her direct father but also to her ancestor, Amram the father of Moses and of Aaron, whence the description "sister of Aaron" which the Quran likewise uses, is to show that Mary is of the same race as the two brother prophets, as commentators such as Al-Ghazzali have stated.
In Qur'an 3:37, God states that He accepted Mary as her mother had asked. She was assigned into the care of a priest named Zacharias.... Zacharias in Islam is not only regarded as a priest but as a prophet as well. Although his wife was barren and he was very old, God blesses Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth with John. John is known as "John the Baptist" in the Bible and as Yahya in the Quran.
B. Medina verses 2.253 (87th): Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He exalted in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (ayyinâti) and We supported him with the holy Spirit (Rûĥi Al-Qudusi).
Quite a binding here... 3.33-34 (89th): Lo! Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the Family of Abraham and the Family of Imran above (all His) creatures. They were descendants one of another. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
3.35-37 or the priestly lineage of Mary... miraculous for a woman. 3.35: (Remember) when the wife of ´Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!
3.36: And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.
3.37: And her Lord accepted her with full acceptance and vouchsafed to her a goodly growth; and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah went into the sanctuary where she was, he found that she had food. He said: O Mary! Whence cometh unto thee this? She answered: It is from Allah. Allah giveth without stint to whom He will.
3:42 And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.
3.44: This is of the tidings of things hidden.... (Dhālika Min 'Nbā'i Al-Ghaybi; beyond reach, the Unseen).
3.45: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him (kalimatin Minhu), whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son (abnu, ibn) of Mary, held in honor (Wajīhāan) in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (others being Idris and Elisha).
Here -walid- is written instead of the usual ibn... 3.47: She said: My Lord! How can I have a child (Waladun, biological, not ibn) when no mortal hath touched me ? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. ---This verse also carries the idea that Isa isn't truly flesh & blood, not even from Mary's womb!
4.156 (90th): And because of their (Jews) disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny... ---Which relates to the Toledoth Yeshu, where Mary is a harlot (a Talmudic charge reported by Celsus)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu 19:28 O sister (Ukhta**) of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.
Note**: If understood 3.35-37 and 4.156 are complements of 19.28: Mary is of priestly lineage, a miracle in itself (ayatin).
66.12 (107th): And Mary, daughter (abnata not walida) of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures (Bikalimāti Rabbihā Wa Kutubihi), and was of the devout.
Finally, with surah 5 (112th) we face the concept of Trinity...
5.17: They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed* to destroy the Messiah son (Abnu) of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah´s is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will**. And Allah is Able to do all things.
5.73: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three.... 5.75: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations (ayati) clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
5.116: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?
When Christians refer to the Trinity of God, they are not referring to three separate gods, and the idea of this term meaning a belief in three separate gods is offensive to them, even as it is to Muslims. Most Muslims assume that because Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they are worshiping in fact three gods. Actually, due to the excessive emphasis upon Mary as the Mother of God during prophet Muhammad's time, the Qur'an (5.116) substitutes Mary, the mother of Jesus, for the Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity.
The Koranic denial of Mary as part of the Trinity has three possible main sources: 1. The Arabic Christian sect of Collyridianism which worshiped Mary as a divinity (Mariolatry). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridians
Nestorianism teaches that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Thus, Nestorians reject such terminology as "God suffered" or "God was crucified", because they believe that the man Jesus Christ suffered. Likewise, they reject the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, using instead the term Christotokos (giver of birth to Christ) or Anthropotokos (giver of birth to a man).
Nestorianism was adopted by the Lakhmid Arabic tribe, while Monophysitism (or Jacobites) was rather adopted by the Ghassanid, closer to mainstream romanity. And we've seen how the Koran adopted the Syriac of the Nestorians instead of the Jacobites' one.
CONCLUDING: We've seen that, except for 3.47, 'son of Mary' is always written Ibn (of the belonging, likeness, affiliation, ie. SONSHIP). The Koranic wording 'son of Mary' is thus another title meaning of Immaculate conception, ie. born of the Holy Virgin.
By using ibn instead of walid, the Koran states that Isa is not the biological son of Mary either, but of her pure likeness.
In 3.47 we read, instead of Ibn, the wording 'Waladun' indicating a biological offspring. That's also the root used in the Koran to state that Isa is not the son (walid) of Allah. So, the Koran is in perfect accord with the Christians: Jesus is not the biological son of God ! Why the sweat ?
But this will be the subject of a 4th post... In the meantime, I hope that this will ring a bell... Note on 5.17: *The denying will is 'Shay'āan' (or law sa), while the positive of action is ALWAYS **Yasha'u.
Part 4 -a: How Isa means the Sovereign Word of Allah
We've seen how Isa originated from a Phoenician root, IES, always related to healing as in its late Phoenician use of Eshmun, the healing child-god of their mythology becoming the Greek goddess Iaso and the IHS associated with Bacchus, before the Christians took it over. This source, through Phoenician, is common ground to Greek and Hebrew alike.
Ishvara is a transcendent and immanent entity best described in the last chapter of the Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita, known as the Ishavasya (Isa) Upanishad. It states ishavasyam idam sarvam which means whatever there is in this world is covered and filled with Ishvara. Ishvara not only creates the world, but then also enters into everything there is:
He created all this, whatever is here. Having created it, into it, indeed, he entered. Having entered it, he became both the actual and the beyond, the defined and the undefined, both the founded and the unfounded, the intelligent and the unintelligent, the true and the untrue. (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.6.1)
This is like the sun and its sun-rays or the tree and its fruits, the seed and the wheat: the beneficent outcome in reaching manifestations.
This is about the same relation between Jesus and his Father. This, to my very surprise, is also found in the Koranic Allah/Isa!
Just like we have seen 'son of Mary' was always written from the root 'ibn' (with extensive meanings), except in a verse (3.47), so 'son of Allah' is always written from the root 'walid' (except in 9.30) which carries a biological, flesh and blood affiliation. So we find here somehow the exact opposite between 'son of Mary' and 'son of Allah' and we certainly should ponder over this...
In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى; `Īsā) is considered to be a Messenger of God who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel. He is considered the Messiah. He is also a word from God and a spirit from Him. He is considered honored in this world and in the Hereafter, and he is one of those brought nearest to God (with Yahya and Idris).
The Muslim Jesus in the Quran (1/5)
Isa is thus (in the affirmative) in the likeness (ibn) of Mary, that is: faultless, immaculate. In the negative, he's not the biological offspring (walid) of Allah, which stresses that he's then in the likeness of Allah, ie. a Spirit from Him. That is why 3.59 must be read as a complementary of 2.30 and 4.171! His earthly appearance was that he became a viceroy on earth, but -in his case- for all time! (43.57-60)
Related Verses: A. Before Medina
81.19-21 (7th): Surely His Word is an honoured messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin), Mighty, established in the presence (Inda) of the Lord of the Throne, (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy (Muā`in Thamma 'Amīnin).
86.13 (36th): Lo! this is a conclusive Word (Innahu Laqawlun Fa؛lun).
19.17 (44th): Then We sent unto her Our Spirit (Ilayhā Rūĥanā) and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
19.19: He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless boy (Ghulāmāan).
19.20: She said: How can I have a boy (Ghulāmun) when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?
19.21: ... And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us (alahu 'Āyatan Lilnnāsi Wa Raĥmatan Minnā), and it is a thing ordained (Maqًīyāan).
19.33: Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
19.34: Such was Jesus, son of Mary (Īsa Abnu Maryama): A statement of the truth (Qawla Al-Ĥaqqi) concerning which they doubt. ---The Koranic wording 'son of Mary' is yet another title meaning Immaculate, ie. son of the Virgin. 23.50: And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign (Abna Maryama Wa 'Ummahu 'Āyatan). ---See below for Ayatan.
19.35: It befitteth not Allah that He should take unto Himself a son (Min Waladin). Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
19.88: And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son (Waladāan, also 19.91-92).
6.100-101 (55th): Yet they ascribe as partners unto Him the jinn, although He did create them, and impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters (Banīna Wa Banātin) unto Him.... The Originator (Badī`u) of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child (Waladun), when there is for Him no consort....
39.4 (59th): If Allah had willed to choose a son (Waladāan), He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created.
43.45 (63th): Did We ever appoint gods to be worshiped beside the Beneficent?
43.57-58: And when the son (abnu) of Mary is quoted as an example, behold! the folk laugh out, And say: Are our gods better, or is he?.... and We made him a pattern (Mathalāan) for the Children of Israel (Libanī 'Isrā'īla).
43.60-61: And had We willed We could have set among you angels to be viceroys in the earth. And lo! verily there is knowledge of the Hour. So doubt ye not concerning it, but follow Me. This is the right path.
43.63: When Jesus came with clear proofs (Bayyināti), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom, and to make plain (Bil-Ĥikmati Wa Li'abayyina) some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.
21.91 (73th): And she who was chaste, therefor We breathed into her of Our Spirit (Min Rūĥinā) and made her and her son a token (Abnahā 'Āyatan) for (all) peoples.
69.40 (78th): That it is indeed the Word of an illustrious messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin).
Early Medina 2.116-117 (87th): And they say: Allah hath taken unto Himself a son (Waladāan). Be He glorified! Nay (Bal), but whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth is His.... The Originator (Badi'u) of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
3.33-34: Lo! Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the Family of Abraham and the Family of ´Imran above (all His) creatures. They were descendants one of another. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
3.39: And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah LORDLY (Sayyidan***), chaste, a prophet of the righteous.
***Sayyidan: Master, Lord, leader... Only one other occurrence: 12.25: And they raced with one another to the door, and she tore his shirt from behind, and they met her lord (Sayyidahā) at the door.
The Word which John is supposed to confirm is Jesus.... the Word from Allah ("Be!" - and he was!)... John is called a prophet (3:39) and it is stated that he was given the prophethood and the book (6:85,89). But what was his message?.... The answer is found in the Bible in these passages: Luke 1:1-25, 39-45, 57-80; 3:1-22; John 1:14-37.
3.45 (89th): (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him (Kalimatin Minhu), whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary (Al-Masīĥu `Īsل Abnu Maryama), held in honor in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
3.46: He will speak unto mankind in his cradle (based on the Arabic Gospel of Infancy: ''He was lying in His cradle (and) said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought fort...''). The Koran transliterated 'son' for 'servant, 'logos' for 'scripture'... viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1125
3.48: And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom (Al-Ĥikmata**), and the Torah and the Gospel....
**Hikma, translated Wisdom, but implying enlightened discernment (ex. 2.151; 2.231; 3.58; 3.81; 10.1; 17.39; 31.1-2; 33.34; 36.1-2; 43.3; 44.1-4). Aramaic: rationality. I've seen many stating that the Koran & Hikma were the same, but 3.48 disproves that completely. Even the word 'Scripture' here seems to have an allegorical meaning like ''teaching him the Word''.
3.49: Lo! I come unto you with a sign (Bi'āyatin) from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by God´s leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by God´s leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses....
3.50: And confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord (Bi'āyatin** Min Rabbikum), so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.
**Note on Ayatin (sign, portent, tokens, see note post #3). Means a probing act of creation, in opposition to the signs (6.37) asked by pagans. An obvious miracle! 2.106: Nothing of our revelation (Āyatin) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten.... Yusuf Ali explains, in his commentaries, the term "aayatin": ''What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means that God's Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad.''
3.55:(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
3.59: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah (Inna mathala AAeesa AAinda Allahi) is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.
The Koran always emphasized that Jesus is but a servant, just another prophet sent to Israel, but that's a trick of the hat: The Son of the Virgin is a portent all by himself! The Koran gives to Isa much more power than to any other prophet by far. Alone with Allah can he makes life out of clay and raise the deads, even up to the ability to abrogate former scriptures... !
The miracle of Jesus' birth leads to the question: is Jesus only human or only spiritual? Wasn't Jesus only human because he was created like Adam? Yes, indeed, in Qur'an 3:59 we read the similitude between the birth of Adam and the birth of Jesus:The similitude of Jesus before God is that of Adam; he created him from dust, then said to him: 'be': and he was.
However, the Qur'an tells us not only about the similitude, but also about the differences between the birth of Adam and the birth of Jesus:
* Adam was born without either a human father or mother (Qur'an 2:30; 15:28; 32:7). * Jesus was born of a virgin (Qur'an 19:20-22). * Adam was created from beneath: only from dust, so he is earthly (Qur'an 15:28; 32:7). * Jesus was created by a Word of God, so he is heavenly (Qur'an 3:45). * Jesus was given to Mary as the faultless child from God (Qur'an 19:19).
On the basis of these facts, we can say that there are considerable differences between the conceptions of Adam and Jesus. Adam was created from beneath and Jesus was created from above. Because Jesus was faultless and created by a Word of God, he had a higher substance. We distinguish God's Word (kalima) and the words of God in the Scripture. God's Word and Spirit must be eternal, since God could never have been without a Word and Spirit. According to the Qur'an, Jesus had in his life on earth no faults (Qur'an 19:19), while Adam disobeyed God in his life on earth (Qur'an 2:36). Adam does not possess the same characteristics as Jesus, the Word of God.
* The Qur'an has a greater number of important titles to Jesus than any other figure. * He is a 'Sign' (Qur'an 19:21; 21:91), a 'Mercy' (Qur'an 19:21) and a 'Witness' (Qur'an 5:117). * Jesus is always spoken in the Qur'an with reverence. * There is no criticism to Jesus in the Qur'an. * In the Qur'an Jesus is God's apostle, Word of God (kalima) and Spirit of God (ruh) (Qur'an 4:171).
The Arab word bashar in the Qur'an refers to a mortal, not to a world of spirits. Mohammed is just a simple mortal like anyone else (Qur'an 18:110; 41:6). The same is valid for the other prophets. So it is strange the word bashar can not be found in relation with Jesus. This should be the best proof Jesus is not God but just a human being. Now we have to seriously consider this question: is it possible that Jesus was in fact more than a prophet? Remember what the Qur'an said about Jesus:
* Jesus was born of a virgin (Qur'an 19:20-22). * Jesus was faultless (Qur'an 19:19). * Jesus was a great healer of the sick (Qur'an 3:49; 5:110). * Jesus was taken to heaven by God (Qur'an 4:158). * Jesus will come back again (Qur'an 3:45; 43:61).
The Qur'an admits there is a special distinction between servants of God (Qur'an 2:253). Jesus has a special position in the Qur'an. For Jesus it is Gods signs to prove (Qur'an 2:253; 43:63) and Jesus received Gods assistance by the Holy Spirit (Qur'an 2:253). Jesus is a person with extreme dignity both in this world as in the other world (Qur'an 3:45). All commentaries agree with the fact that this implies both holiness as blessings. Only Jesus can do the actions 'create' and 'to give life' (Qur'an 3:49). No prophet in the Qur'an has done such actions. Therefore the position of Jesus is above all other persons and exalt him to a level no human being ever reached. What do you think about Jesus? Can you say that he is merely another prophet?---
There is no distinction to be made between prophets AS prophets, ie. those denouncing the idolatry of their own given time! But in the case of Isa, he's much more than a human prophet: If Adam was taught to name, Jesus is Allah's Mercy as ordained (19.21).
The similitude of Jesus with Allah (Varuna/Mitra; Brahman/Ishvara) explained: 24.35: Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will (Yashā'u, YS-h!) And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.
---To be continued (Part 4 -b)...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Part 4b: How Isa isn't the biological son (-walid-) of Allah
Later Medina related verses 4.157: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah´s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
4.158: But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
Refers to a deliberate descent of a deity (an incarnation of a deva (god) from heaven to earth), or a descent of the Supreme Being (...) and is mostly translated into English as "incarnation", but more accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation".... the concept of avatar corresponds more closely to the view of Docetism in Christian theology, as different from the idea of God 'in the flesh' in mainstream Christology.
In other words: Jesus is, by being, the incarnated message of Allah, a Mercy and a Revelation unto mankind (19.21). As His Kalimatullah, His Ruhullah and His Will (Yasha' Allah), Yeshua/Isa is the verb ''BE'' and that's it (2.116-117, etc).
The cosmic relation found between Isa and Allah is always that of the Sky and our Sun (Varuna/Mitra; Vishnu/Krishna). If our Sun is the main factor of life on earth, it's itself dependent of an order of a much larger scale of infinite unseen. In the Koran, Allah isn't the causer of Isa, that rather belongs to ar-Rahman (the Beneficent, 43.45; 19.18).
4.171: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son (Waladun). His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
Conceptual transposition (of 4.171): Do not say 'three' (as in the Latin 'substancia') for the Messiah, born Isa son (abnu) of Mary, was an emissary of Allah: His Logos (Kalimatuhu), conveyed into the flesh through Mary, yet FROM His spirit (Ruhun Minhu). So believe in Allah and His messengers (inspired by His Word).
Elsewhere, the incarnation of Isa through Mary is given as signs and portents to mankind (21.91; 23.50). Indeed, as a bodily appearance, Isa is only a messenger but his spirit is much more than that (19.21; 3.45).
66.12 (107th): And Mary, daughter of ´Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein of Our Spirit (Min Rūĥinā). And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures (Bikalimāti Rabbihā Wa Kutubihi), and was of the obedient.
61.14 (109th): O ye who believe! Be Allah´s helpers (Anşāra Allāhi), even as Jesus son (Abnu) of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers (Anşārī) for Allah ? They said: We are Allah´s helpers (Anşāru). And a party of the Children (Bani, root ibn) of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved.
In Surah 19:35, He is called Kaul ul Hak, the Word of Truth. An argument can easily be based on these expressions for the eternal nature of Jesus Christ and His supreme office, but it is doubtful whether most Moslems would admit its force. Dr. W. St. Clair Tisdall rightly says: "The term Kalimah (word, speech) denotes the expression of what is in the mind of the speaker, who in this case is God Most High. If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God's will; but since God Himself calls Him "the Word of God," it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God's will, and the only perfect manifestation of God. It was through Him that the prophets spoke when He sent them His Holy Spirit. Since then the title Kalimatu llah Allهh shows that Christ only can reveal God to men. It is clear that He Himself must know God and His Will perfectly."
JESUS AS THE 'SON (-Walad-) OF ALLAH'. The main problem with Muslims concerning Jesus as a 'son' of G-d is that they write 'walad' for 'son', which carries the idea of a blood/sexual affiliation. In the Arabic Christian bible the Arabic word use is Ibin, which rather mean a descendance. In the Bible, 'son of' can relate to 'from the house of', 'the tribe of', like the Arabic Bayt (extended family). Son of should thus be understood as 'belonging to', not procreated by... Jesus himself stated that we were all ''sons of God.''
Again, the Qur’an has no disagreement with Christian Canon there, on the fact that Mary was a virgin and no actual sexual intercourse took place. From this, one may conclude that the Qur’an clearly precludes Allah having a son from a physical, sexual union (walad)… But it does not preclude Allah having a non-biological, relationship-wise son (ibn). Which is exactly what Canonical Christianity has always said.
- Nestorianism, which believed Jesus had two essences, man and Logos, which were unmingled yet eternally united; - Monophysitism, which believed Jesus’ two natures were joined in one body; - Docetism, which believed Jesus was all God and only appeared to be human; - Arianism, which believed Jesus was a special creation by God for man’s salvation; - Ebionites, which believed Jesus was the Messiah, but was not divine.
This confusion over the nature of Christ is reflected in Islam. For example, the Qur’an teaches that Jesus did not have a biological father, being conceived in Mary’s womb by the will of God. Yet, in a mental disconnect, Muslims say Jesus was not the son of God. This belief is considered blasphemy and punishable by death.
Confusion may be due to the two different Arabic words for son: - “walad”- son from a sexual union; and - “ibn” – son in the widest sense of the word, similar to the Hebrew word “ben” – builder of the family name.
In verses which say Allah did not have a son, the Arabic word used for “son” is “walad” – son of a sexual union, not “ibn” – son in the widest sense.... In this sense, Muslims and Christians are in agreement, that God did not have sex with Mary.
Genesis 15.3: a son of my house. Belonging to. Luke 16.8, the sons of this age, sons of light. In 1Sam.3.6 Samuel being the 'son' of Eli doesn't mean a physical parentage but a spiritual one. The same in 1Peter5.13 where Mark is referred to as the 'son' of Peter. That's always in relation with God perceived as the Sacred Father.
In the case of Jesus, the term 'son' is used to denoted a spiritual togetherness, the two being one especially emphasized in John 17. The son is eternally in relation with the father.
(John 17.1-5: ... Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.)
But the Muslims' perspective on this keenness is thrown away by their use of the term 'walad' to determine this relation. 'Walad' or 'Walid' refers strictly to a biological keenship, a sexual begotting, which is contrary to the Christian understanding of the relation. Instead of 'Walid' the actual Arabic words to description this relation are rather 'Ibn' or 'al-Bayht'' (from the house of). This is even included in the Islamic notion that Jesus was the Word (Kalimatu'llah Q.4.171) and Spirit of Allah (Ruhullah Q.19.16-21; 21.91; 66.12). But G-d is by no mean a physical father, nor a male divinity!
In 2.87 and 2.253 Jesus is associated with the Holy Spirit. The Islamic Holy Spirit is sometimes confused with Gabriel (Q.97.4, 78.38, 70.4; 26.193; 16.102; 5.110) or with Jesus himself. In 4.171 Jesus' prehuman existence is underlined. It fields with the Nestorian notion that although God isn't the Messiah, the Messiah is in Godhead, quite in line with the Islamic understanding. No man can be God, but God can be incarnated.
More so, the Koran clearly states that Jesus is the Breath of Life in 3.49 and 5.110. In 38.71-72 Jesus creates and breathes life exactly like Allah! In Q.4.171 the Koran forbids to worship the trinity while emphasizing it in the very same ayat stating of: 1. God; 2. Jesus as His Word; 3. Jesus as His Spirit!
The Quran never identifies the Spirit as Gabriel. In fact, when Muhammad was asked concerning the Spirit he didn’t say he was Gabriel, but candidly admitted that he didn’t have a lot of information and didn’t really know much about his exact identity (Q.17.85): ''They will question thee concerning the Spirit. Say: 'The Spirit is of the bidding of my Lord. You have been given of knowledge nothing except a little.'' Why didn’t Muhammad simply come out and say that the Spirit is Gabriel if this is what he really believed?
The second problem is that this view implies that Gabriel, whom Muslims believe is a creature, is another god besides Allah since he has the same ability that the Muslim deity has, such as creating and breathing life into things. Thus, this position turns a creature into a co-creator and life-giver with Allah (that is, unless Muslims want to change their position and claim that Gabriel isn’t a creature).
The third problem is that both Q. 21:91 and 66:12 emphatically say that it is Allah who breathed the Spirit into Mary, whereas the above expositors state that it was Gabriel who did so. This means that, a) Gabriel cannot be the Spirit since he is the one who breathed out the Spirit into Mary, clearly differentiating the two, and b) Gabriel is none other than Allah, the very one who breathed the Spirit into Jesus’ blessed mother. In other words, Gabriel breathing out the Spirit identifies him as Allah since the Quranic passages expressly teach that it was Allah, not some other being, that did the breathing.
This is what we would have if we were to put this into a form of a logical syllogism:
1. The Quran says that Allah breathed the Spirit into Mary. 2. The Muslim exegetes say that it was Gabriel who breathed into the mother of Christ. 3. Therefore, Gabriel is Allah the very one who did the breathing and caused Jesus’ conception.
Clearly, this Islamic interpretation of the aforementioned references is brimming with theological problems. There is another way of interpreting these particular Quranic references, one that may not be too pleasing for Muslims. One can understand from all of these citations that Jesus is God’s Spirit who was breathed into Mary. After all, doesn’t the Quran identify Jesus as a Spirit who proceeds from Allah? (quoting 4.171 and 58.22)....
58.22: Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren or their clan (Ābā'ahum Aw Abnā'ahum Aw Ikhwānahum Aw Ashīratahum). As for such, He hath written faith upon their hearts and hath strengthened them with a Spirit from Him (Rūĥin Minhu)....
In order for this Spirit to be able to strengthen all true believers at the same time he must be personally present with all of them wherever they are at and must have the divine power to protect and preserve them all. Seeing that these are all characteristics of Deity it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the late Muslim translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali referred to this entity as the Divine Spirit:
… Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, ‘a spirit from Himself’. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with the Divine Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God. (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold emphasis ours)
And yet Jesus is said to be the Spirit from God! Moreover, doesn’t the hadith literature call Jesus the Spirit of Allah (Roohullah)? .....Tthe Quran assumes (quite mistakenly, we might add) that in order for Jesus to be God’s Son God must have a wife with whom he had sex and got her pregnant: ''Yet they ascribe to God, as associates, the jinn, though He created them; and they impute to Him sons and daughters without any knowledge. Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above what they describe! The Creator of the heavens and the earth -- how should He have a son, seeing that He has no consort, and He created all things, and He has knowledge of everything?'' (Q.6:100-101).
Christians can further agree that Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense that Muhammad understood it, e.g. Jesus is not God’s biological offspring whom he physically sired through Mary. Such an understanding is just as insulting and blasphemous to the Christians as it is to the Muslims.
All but one reference in the Qur'an that negate the Sonship of Jesus Christ, 'Isa al-Masih, ibn Miriam, in the negation use the Arabic word, walad ﻮﻟﺪ , generally meaning a physical son in the nominative but also able to have a spiritual/metaphorical meaning. Sura 9:30, “The Jews call 'Uzair a son (abnu) of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son (abnu) of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!”, is the only place in the Qur'an where Jesus Christ is referred to as the Son of God using the word, ibn ﺍﺑﻦ .
However, the second part of the verse containing the actual statement denouncing the confession of Christians that “the Messiah is the Son of God”, uses neither the word ibn ﺍﺑﻦ nor the word walad ﻮﻟﺪ in its denunciation. Since ibn ﺍﺑﻦ can have either a physical or spiritual meaning, without a specific word used in the negation it is unclear whether the physical or spiritual meaning, is denounced. There are three possibilities in it's interpretation. Either only the physical meaning is denounced, only the spiritual meaning is denounced or both are denounced.
When one applies the context in Sura 6:100-101 and Sahih Muslim Vol. 1, chapter 81, number 0352 to determine the correct interpretation of Sura 9:30, then only physical sonship was understood from the word ibn ﺍﺑﻦ in this situation and only physical sonship was denounced because both passages state and then negate the presence of a wife in the process.....
In both the Hebrew and the Arabic, the verbal form of “walad” is used to refer to physical birth or a spiritual anointing. Although the noun form “walad” is not used in the Hebrew Scriptures when referring to the source of Jesus’ divine nature, the verbal form “yawlad” is used in this meaning. As already cited, “ben” is regularly used to refer to the “son-messiah” المسيح. This is the precedent that God has set in his word. The context in Psalm 2 is the key to understanding the message. It is absolutely clear that this was no physical birth. This psalm speaks of a grown person who is inaugurated as the king of God’s people, and the term “yawlad” denotes the giving of the authority and power of God’s Spirit. When Psalm 2:7 is quoted in the Injil as referring to Jesus Christ, the Greek word “gennao” which can have a physical or spiritual meaning is used for “yawlad.” Again the context is very clear. A spiritual anointing is proclaimed. The source of Jesus Christ’s immaterial nature is proclaimed as being not only from God but actually God in him.
Part 4c: How Yeshua (i.e. Jesus) is written all over the Koran!
In Hebrew, Jesus' name is written Yeshua. In correct Arabic it should then be Yasu, or Yashu, but it's never so found in the Koran. Even in 4.163 and 6.85-86 (where the Koran gives plenty of first name, ALL of them from Syriac rather than Hebrew or Arabic) we still read Isa instead of the expected Yasu or, to be self logical, the Syriac Yeshu!
So until now I was wondering why the hell this name of Yeshua wasn't found in the Koran but 'Isa', merely a Hindu/Phoenician title.
Thanks to my familiarity with etymology, almost as soon as I've started to dig deeper into Koranic transliterations, I came to discover quite a shocky: It's all over their holy book! Yet as far as I know this trumpeting etymological concordance has never been pinpointed ! But first, have a look upon etymology itself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
Examples... The Bible (and Greek too) is an etymological disaster: for example not only weren't the Hivvites our named Hittites for they called themselves Nesites (from which etymological roots can be traced with Kemet, -wrongly called Egypt), but Pharaoh never was a proper name (as in the OT and the Koran) but a title (Great House) yet only stemming out from the 22nd dynasty (that of Shoshenq from... Libya, the biblical Shishak of 1Kg.14.25 and 2Chr.12). This is like confusing 'His Majesty' with a proper name! Same happened in confusing the meaning of Christos with Mashiah...
18.23-24: And say not of anything: Lo! I shall do that tomorrow, Except if Allah will (Yashâ'a Allâhu).
Yeshua (Hebrew name for Jesus -YS'h-) became... Yasha'u (Allah's Will as His Mercy), i.e. His Logos! And the etymological concordance (both YS-h) is simply way too overwhelming for so Semitic cousins.
Yeshua and Joshua DO share the same root, the former being the post-exilic form of the later. They are originally not from Aramaic but from biblical Hebrew, which is 90% Phoenician, like its cousin Moabite. And the Phoenician root is that of their archaic sungod YES or IES, the One Light. The same root is found in the Greek and Latin forms, IHS (for Bacchus), the Celtic Hesus, up to the English YES. So it was related to healing as in the Greek goddess Iaso. Way further back we can think of Horus as the Iusa (ever begotten son of Ptah). We've seen it above...
It's also related to another Arabic term, Mâ sâʾ (Masih, Messiah) Allâh (ما شاء الله), which means "God has willed it". The definition of Masih as Ma Sa Ha comes from Tabari, NOT from the Classical Arabic stemming from Hebrew.
Mā sāʾ Allāh or Masha 'Allah (ما شاء الله), means "God has willed it". Just like Allah's Yasha'a is but a transposition of Yeshua + Logos!
Inch'Allah is thus a contraction for Isa... as Yasha'a Allah (Yeshua), His Will thus His VERB, as per John 1.1-4... 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
This is considerably strengthened by the fact that ISA wasn't then... a proper name but an attribute pertaining to a spiritual dominion, as defined in the Isa Upanishads.
The Islamic Pharisees simply made every possible machination to transform Muhammad into their own self Messiah. To do so they had to run contrary to ALL the Koranic injunctions, thus adding themselves to its enshrined warnings:
Updated verses: 9.31 and 9.34 They have taken as lords beside Allah their mullahs, their imams and Muhammad as a Messiah, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
O ye who believe! Lo! many of the imams and the sheiks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar from the way of Allah.
In 9.26-27 Yasha'u is associated with the Jewish Sekinah (Arabic Sakinah, Peace of Reassurance). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakina 9.26-27: Then Allah sent His peace of reassurance (Sakînatahu) down upon His messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts ye could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward of disbelievers. ---Then afterward Allah will relent toward whom He will (Yashâ'u); for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
The word ''Isa'' means the Lord of the Universe. The Upanishads begins with the majestic and triumphant declaration that the whole universe is inhabited by God and belongs to Him.
As I've said, the more I study the Koran the more I find it akin to Hinduism. Even Allah has a duplicate in the Vedic Varuna! His relation with Isa best explained by the one existing between Varuna and Mitra! Reference: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8394
Varuna has aspects of a solar deity though, when opposed to Mitra, he is rather associated to the night, and Mitra to the daylight. As the most prominent Asura, however, he is mostly concerned with moral and societal affairs than being a deification of nature. Together with Mitra–originally 'agreement' (between tribes) personified—being master of rta, he is the supreme keeper of order and god of the law. Varuna and Mitra are the gods of the societal affairs including the oath, and are often twinned Mitra-Varuna....
And the Vedic Rta, or the later Hindu Dharma, being reproduced in the Koranic Deen (Din)! And Allah/Isa being but... Varuna/Mitra!
Mitra () is an important divinity of Indic culture, and the patron divinity of honesty, friendship, contracts and meetings. He is a figure of the Rigveda, distinguished by a relationship to Varuna, the protector of ṛta (cosmic order also known as Sanatana Dharma)....
The Indo-Iranian word *mitra-m means "covenant, contract, oath, or treaty", and only later on, "friend" (retaining the original neuter gender, mitram). The second sense tends to be emphasized in later sources, the first sense in the Veda and in Iranian. The word is derived from a root mi- "to fix, to bind" (Indo-European *Hmei), with the "tool suffix" -tra- (compare man-tra-), a contract is thus described as a "means of binding.
Vedic Mitra is the patron divinity of contracts and meetings (Covenant). He is a prominent deity of the Rigveda distinguished by a relationship to Varuna, the protector of rta Together with Varuna, he counted among the chief Adityas, a group of deities with social functions. They are the supreme keepers of order and gods of the law....
In some of their aspects, Varuna is lord of the cosmic rhythm of the celestial spheres, while Mitra brings forth the light at dawn, which was covered by Varuna. Mitra together with Varuna is the most prominent deity and the chief of the Adityas in the Rigveda. (...) The pairing with Varuna, a god unknown in Iranian religion, is very strong already in the Rigveda, which has few hymns where Mitra is mentioned without Varuna....
In the late Vedic Shatapatha Brahmana, Mitra-varuna is analyzed as "the Counsel and the Power" — Mitra being the priesthood (Purohita), Varuna the royal power (Râjân). As Joseph Campbell remarked, "Both are said to have a thousand eyes. Both are active foreground aspects of the light or solar force at play in time. Both renew the world by their deed." Reflecting his status as a solar deity, Mitra has long been worshiped in the sunrise prayers of the Hindus.
In Zoroastrianism, Varuna became Ahura (Vedic Agni) while Mitra developed independently (the mediator between mankind and Godhead)...
19.21: ... We may make of him a revelation (ayatan, see above) for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.
19.34: Such was Jesus, son (ABNU, see above) of Mary: a statement of the truth (Qawla Al-Ĥaqqi) concerning which they doubt.
We must always keep in mind the cosmic relation between the infinite sky and our own source of light, the sun. This is timely stressed in Hinduism by Varuna/Mitra; Prajapati/Pusan; Vishnu/Krishna or the Brahman/Ishvara.
If the son is the 'first born of all creation' (Col.2.15), it is indebted itself to the Universe for it's own existence. Thus we're all the sons of the sun while being -with it-, and everything there is, the sons of the infinite... Yet not of biological belonging (walid) but of appertaining to (ibn)!
On this kind of togetherness lies the relation between Allah and Rahman, the Koranic father of Jesus-Christ. 43.45: ...Did We ever appoint gods to be worshiped beside the Beneficent ?
Only this 'appearance' of Isa as a human (the Hindu concept of avatar) explains 4.157 and 3.59 perfectly. Kalimatullah and Ruhun Minhu means that Yeshua is ONE (Hindu avatar) WITH GOD, as in Allah's yasha'a!
In other words: Jesus is by himself, the incarnated message of Allah, a Mercy and a Revelation unto mankind (19.21). As His Kalimatullah, His Ruhullah and His Will (Yasha'a Allah), Yeshua/Isa is the verb ''BE'' and that's it (2.116-117, etc).
3.39: And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah, LORDLY, chaste, a prophet...
So the Word was timelessly present WITH Allah, until it became appearance (avatar) in the flesh... Which makes the Decisive Word of an honored prophet, Isa, as per 69.40, 81.19, 86.13, 3.45, 4.171!
And this honored messenger is what these verses are all about: 69.40: Certainly, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasûlin Karîmin). 81.19: That this is in truth the word of an honored messenger, (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin). 86.13: Most surely it is a decisive word (Innahu Laqawlun Fa؛lun).
Nothing to do with Gabriel, an unwilled automaton who had to bow to Adam so obligated by Allah's Will, ie. Yasha'u (Hebrew, Yeshua).
--In the Koran, Isa is a title rather than a proper name.
--It obviously came in Islam through the Nestorians.
--The expression -Isa ibna Maryam- emphasizes that Jesus was created in a pure fashion.
--Isa isn't the biological (walid) son of God but an emanation from Him, i.e. His logos.
--Isa is the Spirit, Wisdom and Word of the Beneficent (ar-Rahman).
--His body is but a prosopon, an avatar. As such Isa is God's incarnation unto mankind.
--Isa and his mother are both signs (ayaat) and portents, much like the creation itself.
--The proper name Yeshua became Allah's will (Yasha'a) throughout the Koran.
From the Bhavishya Purana isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa nityashuddha sivamkari ishamasihah ca iti mama nama pratishthitam (etc).
Having placed the eternally pure and propitious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, oh protector of planet Earth, I preached these principles through the same religion of Mlecca and so my name became Isha-masihah (Lord purifier).
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.