Virgin Birth of Prophet Jesus PBUH

[optimist]

If according to you, 'baghiy' in this context means a transgression such as participating in intimacy when one has renounced the world, then are you seriously suggesting that based on the above verse Mary's mother also never transgressed the boundaries of intimacy as she was a nun? Then how did Mary's mother conceive Mary?

Salam,

It was the temple rule that someone dedicated to the service of the temple should not marry.  Mary's mother was not a nun.  You quoted the following verse.

019.027-28
"Then she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Mary! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a wicked man nor was your mother unchaste (baghiy)"

Here also "unchaste" is not the apt translation.  The Jews were saying that Mary's mother always respected the clerical discipline and never revolted against the temple rules.   
 

As you are aware, the root word, Al bagh yi, means the wish to exceed the middle path (whether one can actually do so or not): al bagh yo means too much rain: exceeding: baghatis samai the cloud exceeded its limit: i.e.  rained a lot: these are the basic meanings of this word.  In 3:6 this word is used as ibtegha-al fitnah meaning wish to exceed to create fitna.   There is absolutely no reason Jews had a case that Mary indulged in adultery. Jews were accusing her revolting against the clerical discipline that a nun shoul not marry.  Actually the Quran itself testifies that Mary guarded her chastity (66:12), that is, in spite of severe circumstances and provocation from the rabbis in the synagogue, as you may note, the rabbis even threw lots to take possession of Mary, however, Mary resisted all such provocation and she guarded her chastity. They should have no case against Mary for indulging in adultery.  They are accusing her for violating the temple rules and getting married and coming back to them with Jesus. 

The idea of renouncing the world including intimacy is even rebuked in the Quran with the issue of monasticism (57:27). You have basically accepted a Christian tradition and imposed it on the Quranic narrative.

When Quran states certain facts we assume things are happening in a flash without there being considerable time gap between the incidents.  It was man made temple rule that someone dedicated to the service of the temple should not marry, however, when Mary came to know about the true teaching she revolted against temple rules and left the life of a nun and started to live a normal life. She had to even leave the place for a considerable period of time.  Kindly note she is coming back to them after a long period of time, until Jesus became a young boy.  In reply to all their allegations,  Mary, without saying anything else, directed them towards Jesus to get their answers from him.  The elderly priests who were extremely proud of their priesthood arrogantly asked should they talk to one who a little boy in the cradle (sarcastically).  This actually does not mean that Jesus was an infant at that time.  Jesus makes a speech and in this speech he is defending also his mother 19:32.  Jesus was a young boy at that time and had received prophet-hood from Allah and the arrogance from elderly priests did not allow them to listen to a young boy and hence their sarcastic remarks.

Anyhow, I read your comments with respect. These are not important issues.  And therefore, there is no problem if we disagree.

Regards,
Optimist

[optimist]

Even the comments from Mary indicate that she is receiving the glad tidings of the news of a boy considerably earlier when she was dedicated to the service of the temple and living the life of a nun.  Why Mary said no man has touched her (no one told her that she is carrying)?  Only a future glad tidings were given to her.  What she actually saying is that she is living a life of nun without being in contact with anyone all along and she further states she is not supposed to committing excesses  breaking temple rules (allow me to focus on this meaning instead of "unchaste" since such an interpretation is not incorrect in the context of the verse and also considering the verbal meaning of the word used). 

Assuming the traditional interpretation is correct, why should Marry say "unchaste",  because she could very well get married in future and have a son in the wedlock?  Therefore, assuming the point as traditionally explained is correct, Mary ought to have replied that how could she have a son when no man has touched her and that she is not unchaste and not going to get married in future. Why Mary focused on being "unchaste" (because no man has touched her is sufficient enough to prove that there is no question of she having a child - if she is referring to her past)?  My question: Did she forget the possibility of getting married in future and having a boy child in the wedlock?

There is an interesting twist even assuming the meaning is actually "unchaste".  It means she is saying that no one has touched her and there is no question of she going to be unchaste and have a relationship with any other person (implying that she is NOT supposed to marry).

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Optimist

May peace be with you.

Please see my responses to your comments in red

It was the temple rule that someone dedicated to the service of the temple should not marry.  Mary's mother was not a nun.

With respect, there is no Quranic support or evidence for your interpolated statement. You are simply relying on an indiscriminate use of Biblical traditions to support your presuppositions.

In fact, I asserted that it was your unwarranted definition of 'baghiy' in a particular context that implied that Mary's mother was a nun.

Here is what I said:

019.027-28
"Then she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Mary! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a wicked man nor was your mother unchaste (baghiy)"

Also note how the noun 'bigha' is used in verse 24:33 to imply fornication or prostitution.

If according to you, 'baghiy' in this context means a transgression such as participating in intimacy when one has renounced the world, then are you seriously suggesting that based on the above verse Mary's mother also never transgressed the boundaries of intimacy as she was a nun? Then how did Mary's mother conceive Mary?

Here also "unchaste" is not the apt translation.  The Jews were saying that Mary's mother always respected the clerical discipline and never revolted against the temple rules.   

This is once again, an unwarranted interpolation. I have provided clear evidence to you how the noun ‘baghiy’ is used in the Quran. I have even appealed to the noun 'bigha' and its use in verse 24:33 to imply fornication or prostitution. You have simply ignored this.

There is absolutely no reason Jews had a case that Mary indulged in adultery.

If Mary brought a baby seemingly out of wedlock to her people, what else would the charge be? Hence one notes clear evidence of surprise in the comments Mary's folk made to her. What you are doing is arguing from a position that Mary did not have a virgin birth which you have not yet proven.

Actually the Quran itself testifies that Mary guarded her chastity (66:12),

Yes, God makes this clear to remove any doubt of Mary's chastity for all believers. But with respect, I once again fail to see what this has got to do with the charge the Jews make against her.
The Quran was not speaking to the Jews of the 1st century Palestine. It was speaking to an Arab audience of the Hijaz.

They are accusing her for violating the temple rules and getting married and coming back to them with Jesus.

Once again, there is absolutely no proof for this. With respect, these are faulty assumptions leading to a wholly unwarranted and faulty conclusion.

It was man made temple rule that someone dedicated to the service of the temple should not marry, however, when Mary came to know about the true teaching she revolted against temple rules and left the life of a nun and started to live a normal life.

Once again, there is no Quranic support or evidence for this.

The elderly priests who were extremely proud of their priesthood arrogantly asked should they talk to one who a little boy in the cradle (sarcastically).

There is once again absolutely no Quranic support or evidence for your interpolation. You have assumed without any Quranic warrant that those that asked the questions were elderly priests. You have completely rendered futile the Quran's clear Arabic verses and narrative.

Mary simply came to her people (qawmaha) 19:27 (no mention of elderly priests) carrying her baby. They were clearly shocked at what she had brought (laqad ji'ti shayan fariyyan) and then they made the implied accusation (19:28).

This is clear Arabic text.

This actually does not mean that Jesus was an infant at that time.

"They said, how can we speak to one who is in the cradle, a child?" (al-mahdi sabiyyan). 19:29 (part)

How clear do the verses of the Quran have to be dear brother?

Jesus was a young boy at that time and had received prophet-hood from Allah and the arrogance from elderly priests did not allow them to listen to a young boy and hence their sarcastic remarks.

This is simply a case of unwarranted eisegesis on your part (a process of interpreting a text or a part of a text in a manner which supports one's own agendas, biases, presuppositions with a view to introduce this into and onto the text). This is a case of simple confirmation bias.

With respect, there is absolutely no proof from the Quran for your statement.

Assuming the traditional interpretation is correct, why should Marry say "unchaste", because she could very well get married in future and have a son in the wedlock?

If someone were to present news to a righteous unmarried virgin that she was going to have a baby. what are the two main contentions in the form of a defence that would come to mind?

• She has not been touched by a man in wedlock.
• That she has not committed fornication (sex outside marriage).

Please note that the Quran does not confirm whether the child had already begun forming in Mary's womb at the point the news was given to her. It only speaks about the news of the birth of a child. Hence it is possible from Mary's remarks, that she had already conceived.
 
With respect dear brother, I find it incredulous that you are going to this level of discussion to raise a contention.

My question: Did she forget the possibility of getting married in future and having a boy child in the wedlock?

It is clear from Mary's reaction of the two statements that she made that this was not a pregnancy that was going to occur in the normal fashion (via wedlock or male intervention).

It appears that you are simply presenting the question because you do not want to accept the clear testimony of the Quran which explicitly confirms the Biblical scriptures and their mainstay belief of the virgin birth of Prophet Jesus.

 
FINAL THOUGHTS & COMMENTS

My dear brother Abdul Samad (Optimist).

With respect, it is absolutely clear to me given our numerous exchanges on this forum and otherwise that you will go to any lengths to support your theology and a particular school of thought.

You have shown me clear evidence of where you will pick and choose indiscriminately from Biblical traditions when it suits, you will take implicit readings over explicit, you will take clear explicit verses of the Quran and read them metaphorically, you will interpolate without warrant to context, subject clear Arabic words to the most unwarranted root word dissection with a view to support your theological presuppositions, you will continue to make points which have no relevance and create your own questions to the academic questions respectfully being asked.

With utmost respect to you dear brother, this is an unwarranted methodology I would really not want to debate with. I respectfully feel that such a methodology has no consistency, no standard and is tedious at best to respond to.

It is also a waste of both of our time as we have long reached a theological impasse.

I did intimate in my last post to respectfully end this discussion with a view to let the readers decide based on evidence, yet you continued to post without any convincing evidence to simple questions.

I ask you once again politely, kindly and with utmost respect. Given our numerous discussions on this forum, please can you not discuss matters with me which appeal to our fundamental differences in approach to the Quran and theology.

I hope this time, you will heed my polite request.

With respect,
Joseph. 

[Truth Seeker]

Salaam Optomist,


You talk of Mary living as a nun:

This was during the time when Mary was living a celibate life as a nun, however, when she came to know of the teachings of God, she left the life of a nun and started living a normal life with the child.

There are no nuns in Judaism !

Mary was a pious women and she was from a pious household so why would she live like a nun when she knew it was an alien concept and not part of her Jewish faith.

You also say:

My question: Did she forget the possibility of getting married in future and having a boy child in the wedlock?

She obviously understood that she was being told that she would have a child whilst being single.

If it was to be that she was to marry first and then have the child, she would have been told of this when she questioned the angel. Instead, he told her that:

"Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is."

Also to avoid all the confusion, the glad tidings of her having a son could have been relayed to her after her marriage, if as you say, that she married first then had the child.

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace,

It amazes me the hoops and rings people go through to refute an understanding derived from clear passages of the qur'an such as with prophet Jesus miraculous birth ......... these arguments dont work for me.  The traditional view is still the most obvious one for me from the qur'an.

[Hamzeh]

Salam

Thanks for sharing this discussion


when reading articles and discussions like this i believe it strengthens the readers ability to determine between the right and the wrong and it strengthens the ability of judgement if its with full honesty.

Thanks Joseph and others