Scholar Sidney Griffith uses a creative technique to try and save the Qur’an from embarressment

51ocbxhjj5l-_sx327_bo1204203200_

Paul Williams writes another article (against Sam Shamoun’s article that shows the Qur’an and Griffith is wrong) that uses Sidney H. Griffith’s book, The Bible in Arabic, to try and show that the Qur’an is aware of doctrinal Christianity at the time, but just exaggerates as a creative strategy and rhetorical device in it’s own ‘prophetology’.  (I would assume this means “The Qur’an’s own doctrine of prophetic ministry against idolatry”) [Note: Williams article only uses Griffith’s work up to page 34, and so the contents of this article only reflect that content so far.  Williams says he will continue, as he reads Griffith’s book.]

Since the Qur’an is inaccurate about the doctrine of the Trinity and the Sonship of Christ and the Deity of Christ, calling it’s inaccuracies a “creative strategy” and “rhetorical device” is indeed creative itself!

See the discussion in the comboxes.  I have corrected some of my typos and mistakes and also not included side issues about Athanasius and Augustine and the canon and Apocrypha and other side comments that the Muslims have made.  One can go to the article and see the whole conversation.

Some of my responses:

 Paul Williams use of Griffiths and Quotes from Griffiths are in blue.

Williams quoting Griffiths:

It seems clear, therefore, that here the Qur’an, aware of actual Christian usage, has for its own rhetorical polemical reasons, reversed the customary Christian order of words in these formulaic phrases in order the more effectively to highlight what it considers wrong about Christian faith in Jesus, and to criticise what it regards as the objectionable Christian doctrine that God has a Son and that He is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

This point that Griffiths is trying to make is about as clear as mud. It is just an assertion. How could it be “more effective” if it is inaccurate? “God is the Messiah” is inaccurate, as Griffiths admits. “God is one of three” is inaccurate, he also admits. And seeing Mary as part of the Trinity is inaccurate (Surah 5:116). It seems to me the easiest explanation is the right one, since you admit that Muhammad was illiterate (Surah 7:157), he is just hearing things and seeing the popular piety around Mary (but ignorant of doctrinal creeds and the Scriptures) – Muhammad is seeing the icons, statues and emphasis on Mary, and prayers to Mary (all man-made traditions that were becoming some of the main heresies and problems that Protestantism has with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox – they have exalted Mary too much. Praying should only be to God. It seems clear that Muhammad got things mixed up and garbled, and got info from heretical groups and apocryphal gospels and Jewish Midrash and Talmudic writings, all non inspired sources. Muhammad and the early Muslims may also have come across the Collyridians in N. Arabia (today’s Jordan), who worshipped Mary.

To have credibility in apologetics and intellectual arguments, the opposing side should accurately understand and communicate what it is critiquing. This is basic logic and courtesy. The Qur’an fails at that big time.

You (the Muslims objecting to my point about intellectual arguments) are not dealing with the specific issue here at this post; and divert the subject matter to the issue of the Tahreef Al Nass تحریف النصّ / Tahreef Al Matn تحریف المتن (Textual Corruption of the Bible).

Surah 5:47 and 10:94 are clear – given those verses, there cannot be corruption of the text in Muhammad’s day; which proves the Bible is not corrupted, since we have basically the same text today. (the textual variants that we freely admit and publish do not affect doctrinal matters, since the doctrinal matters are repeated in other firm texts)

Paul Williams objected to me saying that the Qur’an in 5:47 and 10:94 affirms the Bible and does not see the Bibe as corrupted in it’s text in Muhammad’s day.

Williams:  “It doesn’t. The NT for example cannot be the injeel that was given to Jesus. The NT was written after Jesus.

The Quran teaches:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.[5:46]”

My response:

Yes, it does. Yes the Father gave Him the gospel, the words of truth

John 17:8
praying to the Father:

“The words which You gave to Me I have given to them (the disciples) . . . ”

John 17:17 – “Your Word is truth”

Then they wrote it down later.

The Spirit guided them to write God-breathed Scripture.
John 14:26 – “all things” and “will bring to your remembrance all that I said to you”
John 16:13 – “all the truth”

 

But since all the accusations of the Qur’an against what Melkites (those that agreed with the Chalcedonian Creed – the Orthodox – “correct doctrine”), the Jacobites (Monosphysites in Syria), and Nestorians – they are all inaccurate – and all the charges are closer to the heretics or misunderstandings (Tri-theism , Mary as part of the Trinity (5:116), God having a wife and sex in order to have a son (6:101), saying “they say “God is the Messiah”- these three groups did not say any of those . . .

since those accusations of the Qur’an are inaccurate, the argument fails big time.

“creative” and “rhetorical strategies” is itself a strategy to avoid embarrassment of inaccuracy.

Monophysites or Mia-physites. (also the Coptic and Armenian Church are Mia-physite. ( one nature; that Christ’s human nature was swallowed up in His divine nature.)

All three groups agreed with the Nicene Creed of 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD – in the Trinity, the homo-ousias (same substance) of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father.

So, the Qur’an fails to argue against Christianity, because it cannot even describe what they believe accurately. (in those issues)

Griffiths suggests that the Qur’an’s criticism of Christian doctrines and practices indicate its polemical engagement with mainstream types of Christianity and not heretical Christians (see examples on page 27).

  1. Griffiths mentions the Gospel according to Luke, the Proto-evangelium of James, the Diatessaron (Harmony of the Four Gospels) of Tatian, and in a footnote on page 27, (footnote 63), the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew ( a real forgery, that has the Palm tree story of Mary that is repeated in the Qur’an in Surah 19.)

    Well, since the Qur’an changes the details of Luke (Luke 1:34-35 – “how can this be, since I am a virgin? . . . the Holy Spirit, and the Power of the Most High, for this reason the holy offspring will be called the Son of God”) , and argues against inaccuracies, that is a fail.

    The Proto-evangelium of James is a non-canonical work, and has elements of Gnosticism in it – Jesus is not born in the normal way from Mary as a human through the birth canal, but just “beams out” with light. That, and the vow of perpetual virginity from Mary, became part of the basis of the Roman Catholic later dogma that Mary remained a virgin even while Jesus was born and ever after He was born. “virgin before, during and after giving birth” – this is a contradiction to the Bible, which only says that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25) and that since Jesus had “brothers and sisters” (Matthew 12:46-47; 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-32, Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5, 10) and since Greek has the word for “cousin” (Colossians 4:10), this is a false doctrine, and most Protestants today don’t agree with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox on this issue. Roman Catholics use Revelation 12 to try and say that is Mary, but the woman had great pain in childbirth there (Rev. 12:2), and that is a Gnostic idea that Jesus and Mary did not experience pain or suffering or hunger or thirst or fatigue, etc.

    This shows further that the Qur’an is getting most of its information from heretical and Gnostic sources.

    This article gives the details on all the other heretical, legendary, myths, Jewish Midrash, and non-inspired works that the Qur’an draws from.

    http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/10/original-sources-koran-stole-its.html

     

    Griffiths wrote:  (subsequently Griffith’s quotes are in italics)

    “But the quotations, while clearly meaning to censure Christian belief, do not in fact quote actual Christian usage of the era.”

     

    Yes, this shows the failure of the Qur’an to know and understand what Christians believed at the time, and the inaccuracy of the Qur’an.

    Rather, the Christians in the Qur’an’s milieu would have said, ‘the Messiah is God, the Son of God’, and they would also have said, ‘the Treble One, the One of Three, is God’. But for reasons of orthodoxy they would never have said that God is Jesus; rather, they would have said Jesus is God.

    ok, except that word “treble” is kind of a strange English word to use here. They said “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) in Latin.

    It seems clear, therefore, . . .

    No, it is not clear. This is just a bold assertion of his in order to avoid the fact that the Qur’an does not know – it is ignorant of the doctrines.

    . . . that here the Qur’an, aware of actual Christian usage,

    no; the Qur’an is not aware, which shows it is not from God.

    . . . has for its own rhetorical polemical reasons, reversed the customary Christian order of words in these formulaic phrases in order the more effectively to highlight what it considers wrong about Christian faith in Jesus, and to criticise what it regards as the objectionable Christian doctrine that God has a Son and that He is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

    The Qur’an seems to have picked up on some pious popular beliefs and practices of Christians – icons and statues of Mary, exalting Mary, praying to Mary, calling Mary, “the Mother of God” (Theotokos) – Nestorius objected to that, and he was right in one sense; calling Mary the Mother of God will lead to people misunderstanding the original intent of the phrase. the original intent was to say that Jesus was God by nature / substance from His conception in the womb of Mary, that when He was born He was God, not that He became God later at His baptism (which some heretics taught = Adoptionism). The Muslims sincerely thought that the Christians had three gods – the Father, the Son, and the Mother, but even the Orthodox Chalcedonians and the Latin Church, which later became both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, did not beleive that. They exalted and emphasized Mary too much, and prayed to her, but they never thought she was part of the Trinity or a “goddess”.

 

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, church history, History, Islam, Muslims, Paul Bilal Williams. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Scholar Sidney Griffith uses a creative technique to try and save the Qur’an from embarressment

  1. θ says:

    Qur’an doesn’t prefer the major Christian world outside of Arabia. A minor is equal to the major.

    On the context of Islamic rejection of Monarchism or Oneness Pantecostalism, Q.5, v.17 doesn’t use the phrase “Messiah is God” (Trinity), nor “God is Messiah” (John 1:1), but rather “Becoming unbeliever those who say: Allah is Messiah”.

    On the context of Islamic rejection of Chalcedonian Jesus on his sonship and divine person, Q.5, v.116 gets such a peer-reviewing by one Christian apologist John of Damascus who makes a commentary upon the verse. John doesn’t express any surprise of mentioning “your mother” in the verse, but he proceeds instead to oppose Qur’anic rejection of Jesus’ sonship and personhood. John of Damascus just understands that Q.5, v.116 talks about his sonship (related to his mother) and divinity (related to his person).

    Unlike today’s Christian apologists, John of Damascus doesn’t accuse Qur’an of having misunderstood the “membership” of the Trinity, especially on inserting a deification of Mary, but rather John commented the content of Q.5, v.116 over two statuses of Jesus as the Son of God and the God.
    //orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
    And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say this word.” [105]

    On the context of Islamic rejection of the Trinity and the membership of the Trinity, the History is a key.
    Qur’an doesn’t use the common word “Thaluwth” to refer the Trinity. It rather refers to Three (Thalath) because ironically the controversial word “Trinity” doesn’t exist specifically in any official creed of Christians. Early Moslems also witnessed a total silence of Trinitarian Arabs against the use of word Thalath by Qur’an.

    Historically, there’s no word “Trinity” at all in either creed of Christians since 4th century, not in Nicene, nor in Apostolic, nor in Ephesian, nor in Chalcedonian, even not in Trent. Hence, Trinitarian apologists can’t ask Moslems to answer a question about something that is not yet existent during the time of Qur’an.

    Although the opinion about the Trinity (as “Trinitas” and “Trinitatem” in Latin) has started since the time of Tertullian, unfortunately no one of the Trinitarian world feels the need to formulate it officially into a real creed. One’s opinion is just a personal commentary, not a doctrinal thing. Hence, at the time of Qur’an the opinion on the Trinity is not yet doctrinal.

    Moreover, it is a fact there’s no such a thing as “Trinity Creed”, but rather a misnomer Latin “Athanasian Creed” (that ironically was not originally called a creed at all), wherein finally a controversial word “Trinity” is mentioned for the first time, that is “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity”.
    The creed indicates that the Trinity is not the nature of God himself, but rather about a triad in the unity (Trinity) to another unity (as “Trinitatem in Unitate” in Latin).

    It is disgraceful how the actual origin of the Athanasian Creed is a mystery, being difficult to trace than the origin of other creeds. It is quite shameful how the creed is named after Athanasius but it is certain that Athanasius was not the author. The Athanasian Creed most likely appeared up sometime after 1600s.
    Who actual author is (or authors are) unknown, and when the time of writing is unknown. Mystery upon mystery.

    To add insult to injury, nobody knows for sure where and how the official leaders of Christendom gather to formulate it in ecumenical manner in order to be what is called the “creed”. It’s rumored that it was used in the liturgy only rarely (sometimes on Trinity Sunday) by Catholic priests.
    Hence, the authorship, place, mechanism and timing of the pseudo-Creed are hard to determine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed
    This traditional attribution of the Creed to Athanasius was first called into question in 1642 by Dutch Protestant theologian G.J. Voss,[4] and it has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius,[5] that it was not originally called a creed at all,[6] nor was Athanasius’ name originally attached to it.[7] Athanasius’ name seems to have become attached to the creed as a sign of its strong declaration of Trinitarian faith. The reasoning for rejecting Athanasius as the author usually relies on a combination of the following:
    -The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
    -Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
    -It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
    -It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
    -It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.[2][8]

  2. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: It seems to me the easiest explanation is the right one, since you admit that Muhammad was illiterate (Surah 7:157), he is just hearing things and seeing the popular piety around Mary (but ignorant of doctrinal creeds and the Scriptures) – Muhammad is seeing the icons, statues and emphasis on Mary, and prayers to Mary (all man-made traditions that were becoming some of the main heresies and problems that Protestantism has with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox – they have exalted Mary too much. ”

    Qur’an never rebukes the Catholics and Collyridians for worshiping Mary, Rather, Qur’an rebukes the Catholics of worshiping the saints, and just illustrates how Allah questions Jesus of his teachings related to his sonship with Mary.

  3. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Muhammad is seeing the icons, statues and emphasis on Mary, ”

    By same reasoning, should not Trinitarians have to say that Q.9, v.31 makes the saints the “third” gods after Jesus, by implicitly excluding Mary?
    Should not Trinitarians have to say that Prophet Muhammad perceives how Catholics crafted many icons, statues and emphasis on the saints, instead of Mary?

  4. Sam Shamoun says:

    Great post brother. Lord willing, I will be sharing this on my FB pages and will eventually link to this in my thorough decimation of Williams’ appeal to Griffith and Reynolds to salvage the errors of the Quran. I promise you that by God’s grace Williams will end up being rather embarrassed for even using these men to defend his book.

  5. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, seeing how that wicked son of Satan named Eric blasphemes the Spirit by accusing him of “raping” Mary, I thought you would like to know is the filthy Quran that dishonors Mary by its depiction of her conceiving Christ. Enjoy!

    it is actually the Qur’an that describes Jesus’ virginal conception and birth in very graphic language:

    And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

    And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

    The word farjahaa, from farj, refers to a person’s private area, to their private parts. Here are some verses which use this word in this connection:

    Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble … and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 23:1-2,5 Arberry

    Say to the believers, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts (furoojahum); that is purer for them. God is aware of the things they work. And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts (furoojahunna), and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper. S. 24:30-31 Arberry

    Men and women who have surrendered, believing men and believing women, obedient men and obedient women, truthful men and truthful women, enduring men and enduring women, humble men and humble women, men and women who give in charity, men who fast and women who fast, men and women who guard their private parts (furoojahum), men and women who remember God oft — for them God has prepared forgiveness and a mighty wage. S. 33:35 Arberry

    and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 70:29 Arberry

    In the above references which speak of Christ’s conception, this word is used to describe Allah penetrating Mary’s private area by breathing his Spirit into it.

    Mahmoud M. Ayoub contrasts the birth narratives of the Gospel of Luke with that mentioned in the Quran. All capital emphasis is ours:

    “The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind. Furthermore, while Luke’s description agrees both in form and spirit with the Qur’anic idea of the conception of Christ, the language of the Qur’an IS FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.” (Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

    He goes on to say:

    “… Then of Mary He (author-allegedly God) continues: ‘And she who guarded well [lit. fortified] her chastity [lit. GENERATIVE ORGAN], and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign [or miracle, ‘Aya] for all beings’ (S. 21:90-91) …

    “In the second instance the Qur’an speaks of Mary as a righteous woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter of ‘Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that most of them tried to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED significations or glossed over it with out comment…

    “Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HER GENERATIVE ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS …’” (Ibid.)

    Finally:

    “Abu Ja’far al-Tusi, the jurist doctor of the Shi’i community, as well as his well known disciple al-Tabarsi, read the words, ‘We breathed INTO IT’ literally. Al-Tusi says: ‘It has been held that Gabriel BREATHED INTO MARY’S GENERATIVE ORGAN then God created Christ in it’ …” (Ibid., p. 68)

    Ibn Kathir provides additional evidence for the very graphic and distasteful nature of the Quranic birth narratives. In his comments on S. 66:12, Ibn Kathir writes:

    meaning who protected and purified her honor, by being chaste and free of immorality,

    meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him TO BLOW into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb THROUGH HER PRIVATE PART; this is how ‘Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here,

    meaning His decree and His legislation. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 10, Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an, pp. 75-76; capital emphasis ours)

    Ibn Kathir makes the following comments in reference to S. 19:22-23:

    “Allah, the Exalted, informs about Maryam that when Jibril had spoken to her about what Allah said, she accepted the decree of Allah. Many scholars of the predecessors (Salaf) have mentioned that at this point the angel (who was Jibril) blew into the opening of her garment that she was wearing. Then the breath descended until it entered INTO HER VAGINA and she conceived by the leave of Allah.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra’, Verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu’minun, first edition July 2000, p. 244; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    Ibn Kathir’s notes on S. 2:223 also help us to see the very graphic nature of the term farj:

    this refers to Al-Farj (THE VAGINA), as Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and other scholars have stated. Therefore, anal sex is prohibited, as we will further emphasize afterwards, Allah willing …

    Ibn Jurayj (one of the reporters of the Hadith) said that Allah’s Messengers said …

    ((From the front or from behind, as long as it occurs IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).)) …

    Abu Bakr bin Ziyad Naysaburi reported that Isma’il bin Ruh said that he asked Malik bin Anas, “What do you say about having sex with women in the anus?” He said, “You are not an Arab? Does sex occur but in the place of pregnancy? Do it only IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), first edition January 2000, pp. 618, 619, 622; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    In responding to the Shia position regarding the permissibility of temporary marriages (mutah), this Sunni writer defines farj as:

    I’arat al-Furuj (Loaning of Vaginas)

    The Shi’ah books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj.” This could literally be translated as “The Loaning of Vaginas.” … (Dr. Ahmad ‘Abdullah Salamah, Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah); online edition)

    Here is the final Muslim example showing that farj refers to the female organ:

    Narrated Basrah:
    A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet said: She will get the dower, for you made her VAGINA (farj) lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2126)

    And here is how one lexical source defines the term:

    Fa-Ra-Jiim = To open, separate, cleave, split, enlarge, part, let a space between, make a room, comfort anything in, dispel cares. An opening, intervening space [gap or breach] between two things. Ex: Parting hind legs or intervening spaces between fingers.
    He opened, made room, ample space.
    Furijat – Cloven, split, rent, opened.
    Farjun (Pl. Furuj) – PUDENDA (SEX ORGAN); chastity, space between legs (of horse or mare), part/s of a person (male/female) INDECENT TO EXPOSE, EXTERNAL PORTIONS OF THE ORGANS OF GENERATION [OF A MALE/FEMALE]. ALSO THE POSTERIOR OF PUDENDUM because it is a place of opening, of between the legs.

    faraja vb. (1) perf. pass. 77:9

    farj n.m. (pl. furuj) 21:91, 23:5, 24:30, 24:31, 33:35, 50:6, 66:12, 70:29

    LL, V6, p: 143, 144, 145 (Project Root List; capital emphasis ours)

    Christian writer Abd al-Masih helps to put this in perspective. Commenting on S. 21:91, al-Masih notes:

    “Whoever reads verse 91 of Sura al-Anbiya’ 21 carefully could be embarrassed. It is scandalous how Muhammad and his spirit of revelation lift Mary up as the most important of all women, and at the same time tear away her veil of chastity. Her self-protection is not described in a euphemism, but is calculated brutally, as in a business deal:

    And she guraded her vagina [farj] so we breathed into her of our spirit. (Sura al-Anbiya’ 21:91)

    This revelation is not an honour, but an exposition. Maybe it was customary among Bedouins to speak contemptuously and carelessly about women. But this only shows the rule of Arabic men and their contempt for women. If the best of women is spoken about like this, what about others! The men are never written about like this. They remain covered, holier-than-thou and self-righteous.” (Abd al-Masih, Who Is The Spirit From Allah In Islam? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503, VILLACH AUSTRIA], pp. 46-47)

    He notes regarding S. 66:12:

    “The second problem is caused by the Arabic language. In Arabic, Allah does not say: ‘so we breathed into her of our spirit’, but ‘into him’. Who is it, into whom the spirit was breathed? The embryo ‘Isa? That is difficult to accept, for then ‘Isa would have existed in Mary’s womb already before the spirit was breathed into her. That would mean that Allah created ‘Isa beforehand or that he existed before he was conceived. Both options are out of the question for Islamic scholars.

    Who is it then, into whom the Spirit from Allah was breathed? IT IS ALMOST UNSPEAKABLE, but the last expression in the previous sentence, which is masculine in Arabic, IS THE EXPRESSION FOR MARY’S GENITALS.[43] The literal meaning of Allah’s statement in Arabic is then, ‘so we breathed into her vagina [farj] of our spirit.’ This turns the stomachs of some of our readers.

    Rudi Paret, the best translator of the Qur’an into German, confirms the meaning of this phrase in a footnote. This seems not only to us, but also to many Islamic scholars to be a blasphemy. Ibn Mas’ud went so far as to suggest that the Qur’anic text should be changed to read ‘so we breathed into her [Mary] of our spirit.’ It is comforting to see that there are Muslims who prefer the possibility of a fallible Qur’an to a blasphemy like this.

    Other commentators explain the expression into him as Mary’s heart or body, which are masculine in Arabic, but not mentioned in the text. These are nothing but attempts to cover up the problem, but the problem itself remains. The assumption that it was an unclean spirit that spoke through Muhammad is obvious. It is almost impossible to imagine that Muslims claim that Jibril himself did this. Here the false statement of an unclean spirit stands against the noble Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., pp. 53-54; capital emphasis ours)

    In the above indicated footnote, the author states:

    43. According to al-Nasafi: “in her vagina” (Madarik al-Tanzil, vol. 4, p. 272). (Ibid., p. 53)

    What is the conclusion? Would not this argument that has originally been constructed as an attack against the Holy Bible rather apply to the Quran and then discredit the Quran as a text of divine origin?

    SOURCE: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/virginalconception.htm

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      to know is the filthy Quran… = to know that it is the filthy Quran…

    • Ken Temple says:

      Yes, I saw that; and I have read your article on that before. The worst stuff is the Jihad fighters who take sex slaves and have sex with them, in the Hadith, and tell Muhammad that they are suffering without their wives, etc. Truly disgusting for that religion to claim that is something good.

      Farj فرج indeed does mean vulva or vagina, both in Arabic (apparently) and Farsi. In Farsi it also means “hole” or “cleft”.

      The verse that θ mentions below seems to be talking about the men who guard the women’s chastity, as men are the protectors of women. (that’s the only way I can make sense of it). The phrase after the word speaks of the women who also guard it, referring back to the Farj فروجهم root word.

      إِنَّ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْمُسْلِمَاتِ وَالْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْقَانِتِينَ وَالْقَانِتَاتِ وَالصَّادِقِينَ وَالصَّادِقَاتِ وَالصَّابِرِينَ وَالصَّابِرَاتِ وَالْخَاشِعِينَ وَالْخَاشِعَاتِ وَالْمُتَصَدِّقِينَ وَالْمُتَصَدِّقَاتِ وَالصَّائِمِينَ وَالصَّائِمَاتِ

      وَالْحَافِظِينَ فُرُوجَهُمْ وَالْحَافِظَاتِ

      وَالذَّاكِرِينَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا وَالذَّاكِرَاتِ أَعَدَّ اللَّهُ لَهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

      (33:35:18)
      wal-ḥāfiẓīna
      and the men who guard CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)
      N – accusative masculine plural active participle
      الواو عاطفة
      اسم منصوب
      (33:35:19)
      furūjahum
      their chastity N – accusative masculine plural noun
      PRON – 3rd person masculine plural possessive pronoun
      اسم منصوب و«هم» ضمير متصل في محل جر بالاضافة
      (33:35:20)
      wal-ḥāfiẓāti
      and the women who guard (it), CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)
      N – accusative feminine plural active participle
      الواو عاطفة
      اسم منصوب

  6. θ says:

    Arabic 101. How can man have a vagina? Silly. Even Arabs don’t know Arabic, very shameful.

    Q.23, v.5. And guard their private parts (lifuroojihim).
    Q.24, v.30. Say to the believers, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts (furoojahum); that is purer for them. God is aware of the things they work.
    Q.33, v.35. ,,,men and women who guard their private parts (furoojahum),
    Q.70, v.29. And guard their private parts (lifuroojihim).

  7. Ken Temple says:

    I also found in a Farsi dictionary that it can also mean the private areas for men (the word for modesty and shyness and shamefulness (when exposed) is used.)

Comments are closed.