Headings
Jesus is born of the Greatest and Purest Human Being of the Qur’an
Mary is the only woman who is even named in the Qur’an. This a notable fact when one considers that prominent women like Eve and Muhammed’s wives are not named, and Abraham’s wife and even Ishmael’s mother Hagar are not even mentioned.
Maryam is “made pure” by God and chosen “above all the women of the world”. We can compare this with the greatest character accolade given to Muhammed- that he is an “example for all mankind”.
Muhammed (nor anyone else) is neither called pure nor sinless in the Qur’an and the fact that he has personal sins is mentioned in more than one place.
“God has purified (waṭahharaki,وَطَهَّرَكِ 31occ., always “purified”) you and chosen you over the women of the whole world” (Q 3:42)
Further the fact that Allah himself states that she is “chosen over all the women of the world” implies that her vocation is greater than that of every other woman. This can only mean be in anticipation of the greatness and unique place in history of her Son, after all she is being prepared to bear him.
As if as confirmation of this, Maryam’s own mother has prepared her for the great event and vocation through dedicating her and “her offspring” to God and for protection against Satan:
“when the wife of ‘Imran said, “My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service], so accept this from me. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing. And when she gave birth to her she said, ‘Lord, I have given birth to her, a female.’ (And God knew very well what she had given birth to; the male is not as the female.) ‘And I have named her Mary, and commend her to Thee with her seed (wadhurriyyatahā), to protect them from the accursed Satan.’ (Q 3:35,36)
Further, she is said to (putting it politely) “guard her chastity” (Q 66:12). Again, this sign of Mary’s Virginal Pregnancy, considered in combination with the fact of her sinlessness and exaltation can only be a sign that refers to the Holiness of her Child.
Were all this a mere “sign for its own sake”, it would seem impossible to ascertain what the purpose of such a sign might be. I have heard Muslims say that the virgin birth was intended to save Mary from the Jews who were trying to slander her (surah19:27,28). This is circular, no one requires a virgin birth to avoid slander, if God had intended to avoid Mary from being slandered by the virgin birth, he would have not given her the virgin birth in the first place.
The Hadith
Once again, even the Hadith seem to confirm that Mary is untouched by sin when they state that every child in history bears the touch of Satan at their birth apart from herself and Jesus:
Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘there is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.” (Sahih Bukhari 3431; 4:641)
The Prophet said, “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Bukhari 3286; 4:506)
Finally, we have not one, but two miracles accorded to Mary. The first, which few are even aware of is that when Mary is still in the Temple being apparently raised by Zakaria, she is given miraculous provisions of food by God, and the other, the Miraculous Virgin Birth of Jesus.
Muslims have objected that Mary is not necessarily sinless. I would counter by asking how can someone whom God has purified not to be sinless? Was the purification not effective? This combined with the hadith that Satan does not touch her out of all other human beings we can indeed seem to deductively derive Maryam’s purity.
What would be the purpose of granting this great quality to a mother if she has no other role to play? We can conclude that it is only because of the unique dignity of her Child.
Finally, a Muslim interlocutor kindly collating this word study of some of the other instances in which purity is predicated of a human being in the Qur’anic text, in response to my post:
“The Qur’an says the same about the wives and family of the Prophet (s). That Allah intends to purify them (wa yutahirakum). See Qur’an 33:33. The Qur’an also says of Prophet Yahya (a.s.): “And We granted him wisdom while a child, as well as purity (zakatan) and compassion from Us. And he was God-fearing.” (19:12-13) It uses the same word here (zakatan) for Prophet Yahya (a.s.) as it does for Prophet Jesus (a.s.) in verse 19:19 (zakiyan). And it was the role of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) to purify the believers through the teachings of the Qur’an and his personal example: “Indeed, Allah has conferred a great favour on the believers by raising a messenger from among them—reciting to them His revelations, purifying them (yuzakihim), and teaching them the Book and wisdom…” (3:164)
I would state in reply:
“But Mary is purified specifically in order to prepare her for the vocation of being the mother of Jesus. Similarly also, Yahya’s main mission is to bring the prophecy of the Advent of Jesus “I bring you glad tidings of a pure boy”. Muhammed’s wives I’m not sure what is the significance, but in the context it seems like Muhammed does not want them to leave the house, and tells them it is from Allah supposedly for their purification. Finally the job of a messenger is to enable the people to purify themselves by following his revelations. Fair enough. but it doesn’t explain why Mary is purified prior to the birth of her Son. This is literally the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception”
Why the Virgin Birth in Islam?
The Virgin Birth is clearly attested to in Surah 19:20 “how can I have a son when no man has touched me?” The reason given from the Qur’an for the Virgin Birth is that it was granted to Mary in order that she could refute the allegations of adultery of the Jews. This is obviously question-begging i.e. had there been no miraculous birth there would be no adultery allegation in the first place. This response is taken from Surah Maryam 19:27-33, where when Mary presents her child to the Jews they express some consternation. In response Maryam merely points at the baby who then confirms that he is a prophet. Muslims might assert that it was “to test her”. I reply: Why give Maryam the test of a fatherless child? No one in the whole of history has even had such a test. There’s no shortage of tests in life. Why this? Isn’t it more likely that the test has a unique significance? Should this be true, Mary would be the only person in Heaven to have passed such a test. Why does Mary get a unique qualification among the whole of humanity? Is the answer not in Christianity? She has the unique vocation of Theotokos.
IN SUMMARY, in the Islamic scriptures, Mary is sinless, pure and “chosen above all women”, none of which is true even of the Islam’s main figurehead, Muhammed. Further she is granted perhaps the most spectacular miracle in history, indeed one that changed the course of the world forever from that time onward.
My strong contention to Muslims is that when the explanation and context not one but an entire corpus of verses is found externally in a different book, is it not likely that the implication of those verses is to be gleaned from that book too?
In fact Islam is closer to Roman Catholicism and Easter Orthodoxy than is often realized, in this exaltation of Mary, and in the concept of the intercessory prayers of the saints among others.
The passages referencing Maryam in the Quran are simply filled with Biblical phraseology: Mary is made “pure”, ”chaste”, “exalted above all womankind”, paralleling the Biblical “blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb..”, “Hail! Full of grace…” “the Lord is with you” “he has lifted up his lowly servant…henceforth all ages will call me blessed” (all from Luke1, verses that a Christian will know by heart).
None of this is explicable in Quranic theology. All of this in Christianity is of course, linked to the birth of God.
God bless, Jesus loves you, and Mama Mary too.
Jesus is Spirit of Allah, so God
In Q 4:171 the “ruh from Allah” is said to be Eisa:
“Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah (isa ubnu maryama rasulu i-llahi), and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him (warūḥun min’hu)…” (Q 4:171).
This is confirmed in the Hadith:
“You better go to Jesus, the Spirit of Allah and his word” (Muslim 193a, Bukhari 7410).
This fits perfectly in line with the Second Person of the Trinity, the Eternal Son of God. The same phraseology “a spirit from him” is seen in Mt.1:20: “the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν Ἁγίου)”. In Lk. 1:35a the same “Holy Spirit” is used synonymously with the “Power of the Most High”, since both perform the same action- producing the miraculous Conception: “The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…”.
Thus we see that in the Qur’anic usage God’s Spirit both effects the miraculous virginal birth of Jesus, and is Jesus- “a spirit from God”. This is in line with Christian belief: The Second Person of The Holy Trinity of God, who is “Spirit” was born of Mary in the Flesh. Such a construction is completely unique for anywhere in Islam, which never otherwise describe children as “spirits proceeding from God”.
Muslims commentators will interpret the use of “spirit” as to mean that Jesus is given to us a mercy from God. Once again, ruh is simply not the word for mercy in any place where there is a clear contextual usage of the word. Further the Hadith also calls Jesus “a word from God and a spirit from him” in a passage in which Jesus is compared to all the other stalwart prophets, none of whom are given the same title. It would seem absurd that only Jesus out of a list of prophets including even Muhammed be called a “mercy from God”. To top that off, when it is indeed said that Muhammad is sent as a mercy from God in the Qur’an (Q 21:107), the actual word (rahma) is used. Although Muhammad is being sent “as a mercy”, the word is not use in a titular sense “the Mercy of God”:
“…You better go to Jesus, the Spirit of Allah and his word…” (Muslim 193a, Bukhari 7410).
On the contrary we would presume that this reflects the Biblical usage where Jesus being really God and God being spirit (John 4:24), is also by that measure himself spirit. Such terminology is used by St Paul: “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” (Rom.8:9). Jesus is a “mercy from God” inasmuch as he is God himself, and in that God is his own Mercy. That is to say, we can agree that Jesus is indeed the “Mercy of God” inasmuch as God’s attributes are God. Further, Jesus in that same verse is also called the “word of God”, (as it is in the Hadith) and we look at that in the article on Jesus in the Quran.
The creation of Adam and Eisa
A counter-argument to the assertion that Jesus is being called the literal word of God that I have heard from Muslims is that this “word” is merely referring to the manner in which God creates Jesus (by saying the word “Be!”), rather than itself being Jesus, and this is also seen in the manner of creation of Adam. It is true that the creation of the soul as per the Qur’an seems to be a matter of God simply saying “be!” and that person’s soul coming into existence. This is given in two verses which tell us that both Adam and Isa are created in this manner:
“Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is…” (Q3:59-61)
And in the verse of the Virgin Birth: “…the angels said to Mary: ‘God bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary…..’Lord’, she said, ‘how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?’ “…if he decreeth a thing he saith only “Be!” and it is” (Q 3:45, 47)
To be sure, when God says that he breathes into Adam and even Isa “from his spirit”, that “spirit has nothing to do with the soul of either Adam or Isa which is external to God, for that soul is created ex nihilo- this is clearly stated “Be!” and it is”. Rather, God is blowing from his own spirit which is within himself. So “we breathed into him (Adam/Isa) from our spirit” while it parallels Genesis 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”, yet in Genesis this is the creation of the soul. The insertion of “from” in the Qur’an makes all the difference here, it differentiates between God’s own Spirit in the Qur’anic usage, and the soul of Adam in the Biblical.
Muslims might argue that the reason Jesus is called “Word of God” is because he is created in this manner, that is, through the “be!” command, and this “Be!” is being referred to as “word”. However this does not explain the titular usage, and the fact that all our souls are created ex nihilo, yet none of us, not even Adam is given such a title, nor (if the titular usage is rejected),even described in such terms. The Qur’an seems to be using the logos language of John.
Jesus as Sinless in the Qur’an
Every other prophet is sinful, as can be seen in the Hadith of intercession in the Holy Spirit section from Muslim. Even Mohammed has sinned which we covered in the article on the alleged prophethood of Mohammed. The hadith says he had to repent 70 times a day (!).
(Q 19:19) He said: “Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure (zakiyyan زَكِيًّا -rootز ك و, always translated “pure”) son.
(Q 2:87) “And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit (ruh qudusi)
What the Hadith say:
Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘there is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.” (Sahihh Bukhari 3431, 4:641)
The Prophet said, “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.” (Sahih Bukhari 3286; 4:506)
In the Genesis Creation story where God uses the word “Be” in his creative acts (“Let there be light”). The Qur’an uses the same formula as is shown God’s creation of Adam by saying “Be! And he was” (15:29). What is “Be”? it is a word, and therefore the “word of God” since it belongs to God. But the Qur’an says that Jesus is the Word of God. Therefore it is possible even using nothing but the Qur’an to make a simple syllogistic inference that Jesus created Adam. St John, under divine inspiration writes, “the Word of God, is God”.
“God Creates with a Word” this is acceptable in both religious traditions, since for God cannot act thoughtlessly or automatically except perhaps in deistic traditions. But this creative action of God cannot be in concert with an instrument, that is to say, the word that God uses “BE” cannot be an instrument, and yet it must be a word. If an instrument it must be available to God at the time of creation and not be created itself. Were God to create such an instrument of creation, then we have an infinite regress and resulting absurdity. SO also the instrument cannot exist eternally with God as uncreated, because to be uncreated is the definition of God. The word of God must himself be God. Either that or God does not create with a word at all. This is the John 1:1, the first sentence in his Gospel “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning” .
Jesus is Word of God- Kalimatallah
“the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word (rasulu i-lahi wakalimatuhu) which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.” (Q 4:171)
“…O Mary! Behold, God gives you good news of a word from Him (bikalimatin min’hu), who shall become known as the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary…” (Quran 3:45)
“You better go to Jesus, the Spirit of Allah and his word” (Muslim 193a, in Bukhari 7410 and also Tirmidhi).
The same goes for Jesus being called “Word of God” in the same verse (4:171) as well as Q 3:45 “˹Remember˺ when the angels proclaimed, “O Mary! Allah gives you good news of a (Word from Him), his name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honored in this world and the Hereafter, and he will be one of those nearest ˹to Allah”.
True, the usage is obscure, when it is compared with 4:171, where it is even clearer, and the fact that such language is used only of Jesus, we can see that more than a metaphorical usage, it is titular, that is, when we see a supposed metaphor used exclusively for a single individual, it would seem natural to look for an explanation for this particular usage. In this case, we also have other titles used for Jesus in the same text like “word of God” and “the Messiah”, and it is easy to conclude that the Qur’an is simply bringing over the titles for Jesus from the Biblical usage.
In contrast it is said of John the Baptist in Q 3:39 And the angels called to him, standing in the Sanctuary at worship, ‘Lo, God gives thee good tidings of John, who shall confirm a Word of God, a chief, and chaste, a Prophet, righteous.’
The usage for Jesus is always unique. Good news of a Word, HIS NAME (us’muhu) is the Messiah, Jesus. In the Arabic, “word” is a feminine noun, so we are not seeing direct transfer of the idiom here (in contrast to 4:171) “a word, its/her name is Jesus”, rather there is a change in pronoun. Once again, this is a unique situation where a linguistic shift from feminine to masculine is necessitated and so we can expect this difficulty- it would sound strange to say “her name is Jesus”, and so the shift seems mandated.
In the case of John, the text is stating that he will confirm previous prophecy “John shall confirm a word of God”. We can see that while there is nothing extraordinary about verse 3:39, 3:45 in contrast has a unique construction, not normally used for human descriptions and it is right that it gives us pause for thought and when compared with 4:171, it seems reasonable to confirm that this is titular usage, and the quoted hadithic usage would seem to strengthen the case.
Lastly, and once again very interestingly, Jesus is called “a word of the truth” (qawla l-haqi definite article for “truth” in the genitive). This gets variously translated, but I think “the word of truth” is the closest. It really does seem from the context (right after Jesus allegedly speaks to the Jews from his cradle) and syntax that it is a title for Jesus, there is no other obvious predicate for it:
“That is Jesus, the son of Mary – a word of truth about which they are in dispute.” (Q 19:34)
Jesus’s arrival is foretold, not Muhammad’s
“God gives you good news of (a son whose name is) John, (who comes) to confirm a word from God (bikalimatin mina i-lahi)…” (Quran 3:39)
Compare this with the greatest prophet of Islam who is himself described as a sinner for the full significance of this as described in the relevant section of this article: Character evaluation for Moh’d.
Jesus’ Miracles in the Qur’an
“…then will God say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount my favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! Thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by my leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by my leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by my leave. And behold! Thou bringest forth the dead by my leave (or permission: this does not mean that it is through Allah’s “power”. Every child requires the parent’s permission to perform certain tasks eg. go out to play, drive a bike/car- this does not mean that the strength to perform these is coming from the parent too)” (Q 5:110)
Divine Insight– Omniscience
“to be a Messenger to the Children of Israel saying, “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I will breathe into it, and it will be a bird, by the leave of God. I will also heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by the leave of God. I will inform you too of what things you eat, and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely in that is a sign for you, if you are believers” (Q 3:49)
Creates just like God– Omnipotence
There are two verses, both quoted above, where Jesus create a bird (5:110, 3:49). In both the word is takhluqu– (translated as “create” every single instance in the Qur’an, and in relation to the action of God). Further the action of breathing into clay is identical to the act by which God creates Adam except that the “spirit” is not mentioned. The clay bird miracle is perhaps the most impressive of these and for this reason: All men are created God of clay. And here we have a man created of clay, who is also to create of clay. That is truly astounding.
Eisa is the Salvation of God
The straight Hebrew meaning of “Yeshua” is “he saves”, and in preserving the word phonetically as “Eisa”, the meaning must be acknowledged as foreign to the Arabic language.
If Yeshua is taken as the contraction of Yehoshua then it is “the Salvation of Yahweh”. But we will stick to the contracted form for this discussion since gives less scope for counter argumentation. There is a strong case for this being the case, since the reason for the popularity of the name itself is the greatness of the one how bore it, Joshua, who indeed was Yehoshua. Again, it is hard to see why when an Israelite named a child “Yeshua”, they did not intend the theophoric connotation, since they were after all a deeply religious nation.
For the name of a prophet to mean “Salvation” would mean that he, at least in some manner represents the Saving action of God. One can therefor make a strong connection to the notion of the Atoning Sacrifice in Christianity which is summarized in the very words of the angel:
“She will give birth to a son and you are to give him the name Jesus because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21)
Will Return to Judge and Save the World
This is Jesus’ Second Coming described clearly in the Qur’an repeating the words of God in the Bible
Surah 89 (al-Fajr) “22. ” No—when the earth is leveled, pounded, and crushed. And your Lord comes, with the angels, row after row. 23. And on that Day, Hell is brought forward. On that Day, man will remember, but how will remembrance avail him? 24. He will say, “If only I had forwarded for my life.” 25. On that Day, none will punish as He punishes. 26. And none will shackle as He shackles. 27. But as for you, O tranquil soul. 28. Return to your Lord, pleased and accepted. 29. Enter among My servants. 30. Enter My Paradise.”
You can see this in the Bible, but here Jesus is first telling a parable which is clearly about the judgement of God and next, he is himself coming to judge:
““His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!(…)But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left…” (Matthew 25:21,31-33)
“Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel (59)…And indeed, he is a knowledge of the Hour, so be not in doubt of it, and follow Me. This is a straight path” (Q 43:61)
One must be careful of the translation of the above verse, because they can vary between translators. Jesus is the subject from the previous verse as indicated and the masculine singular pronoun “hu” is used- “he is the knowledge”.
The Hadith elaborate on just what Jesus’ relation to the Hour is, for for Jesus to be “the knowledge of the Hour” would seem to imply that his return would be the Sign of the Hour. This is an extremely Christian image, needless to say.
Al-Bukhaari (2222) and Muslim (155a) narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah said: “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, soon the son of Maryam will descend among you [according to another report: the Hour will not begin until the son of Maryam descends among you] as a just judge (Muslim 155a says just ruler). He will break the cross, kill the pigs and abolish the jizyah, and money will become abundant until no one will accept it.”
Verses like 19:33 and 3:55 speak of the death of Eisa (the Qur’anic equivalent of Jesus or Iesous), however 4:157-8 state that Allah actually rescued him from death on the Cross, which was only actually an illusion, by “taking him to (Allah)”. The next verse is startling, because it states that all men will believe in him by the time of his death. This gives room for the Islamic version of the Second Coming of Christ in which he establishing Islam universally and then dies, after all. In other words, Jesus saves the world. I do a full treatment of this in my article Did Qur’an’s “Eisa” Die or Not?
Irrespective of the Second Coming or not, the secretive act of Allah making it appear as though Christ died and then removing him from the public view altogether and permanently without trace of a body leaves the apostles with a leader they have seen as apparently die, then also possibly witness this “taking to Heaven”. This is the Christian narrative apart from the fact that Eisa would in the Islamic version would one would think have informed the apostles that he did not die after all.
Overall I think that the main problem of this version is of Jesus apparently returning as “Saviour of the World” when all men will believe in him, and thereby leading to a universal single religion, which is an eschatological view. Thus Jesus is responsible for the eschaton. How is that the role of a human being? The hadith flesh this out further by stating he will supposedly put an end to the Christian religion by “breaking the Cross, killing the pigs”, and also all other religion by ending the practise of jizya. Jizya is the alternative given to non-Muslims to have a semblance of co-existence, leaving only the option the “convert or die” option at this time. When seen in this sense, Islam affirms the eschatological role that Jesus that he has in Christianity even calling him a “just judge” (which it might be debated should be translated as “ruler”) except that it translocates the time of Jesus death from 33AD to the end of days. My objection to this would be that there is no need to die when the world is ending anyway, this would be superfluous. Sahih Muslim confirms “spite, mutual hatred and jealousy will certainly disappear” at this time (155c). Dawud confirms he will “perish all religions except Islam” (4324), and that he will “fight the people for the cause of Islam”. Bukhari actually quotes verse 4:159 with respect this the Second Coming. All the narrations are from the mouth of Muhammed himself and the elements of “by him in whose hands is my soul, Isa Ibn Maryam will soon descend”, he will be “Just judge/ruler”, will “break the cross”, “kill the swine”, “abolish jizya”, and usually the odd-sounding scenario of “Money being abundant”. Times of abundance are not represented by abundant money but rather low inflation requiring less money for more product, this is also a poor view of how finance, but a desert Arab trader could not have known that.
The full list of hadith: Bukhari 2476, 2222, 3448; Tirmidhi 2233, Ibn Majah 4078, Muslim 155a and c; Dawud 4324; Ibn Majah 4077 (this is the only one which is daif).
In some places we see Eisa described as just ruler while in others just judge. I am unable to look into this fully, except to state that judge is “qazi” in Arabic, and I need to check if any of the traditions have this word.
