Sunday, 20 November 2016

Historical Error: Mary, the mother of Jesus as Miriam, the sister of Moses

The Quran makes a clear historical error when it borrows stories from the Bible. The error we have in spotlight here is that the Quran mentions Mary, the mother of Jesus as the same Miriam (both names are written as Maryam in Arabic) who was supposedly the sister of Moses and Aaron according to the Bible. This is totally absurd since Moses (if at all he existed) lived more than 600-1000 years before Jesus.

The evidence for this is so strong that the Quran repeats this mistake in two different ways.

1) By addressing Maryam, the mother of Jesus as "Sister of Harun (Aaron)" (Quran 19:28)
2) By mistaking Imran (Amram), the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam as the Grandfather of Jesus (Quran 3:35 - 3:45, 66:12)

Before I describe the evidence, let us consider the possibility that the verse 19:28 is not referring to a biological sister. Is it then a mere coincidence that Aaron actually had a sister with the same name Maryam as per the Torah? Even to the point that she is described in Torah as "Sister of Aaron", exactly as Jesus' mother is referred to in the Quran? Think over it. If the Quran is from God, then we have to accept that God was deliberately misleading humans into believing that Mary, the mother of Jesus was Aaron's sister. Or is God so careless that he didn't realize this and ended up using the word "sister"?

Let us forgive this and see if there is any other place in the Quran where this confusion between Mary and Miriam is repeated. Yes there is! The Quran verses 3:35 - 3:45 describe that the wife of Imran gave birth to Maryam, who later became the mother of Jesus. Verse 66:12 describes Maryam, the mother of Jesus as the daughter of Imran. There are absolutely no inscriptions or scriptures mentioning Imran as the father of Mary, till the author of Quran came up with this claim in the 7th century. Strange! So, from where did the author pull out the name "Imran" from? The answer is Torah. Exodus 6:20 and 15:20 describe that Amram was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam. Amram is arabicised to Imran. This idea that Imran had a daughter "Maryam" made the author of Quran think that this was talking about Maryam, the mother of Jesus.

Here is a verse from the Torah that state that Moses and Aaron had a sister named Miriam where she is described as "sister of Aaron", exactly as Jesus' mother is described in Quran:

Here is another verse from the Torah that state that Amram (Imran) was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam:

Here are the verses 19:27 - 19:34 from the Quran which show that the author of Quran mistook Mary, the mother of Jesus as the sister of Aaron:

19:27 - Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! You have come with an amazing thing.
19:28 - O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a wicked man nor was your mother a harlot.
19:29 - Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ?
19:30 - He spoke: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and has appointed me a Prophet,
19:31 - And has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive,
19:32 - And (has made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and has not made me arrogant, unblessed.
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: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.

Here are the verses 3:35 - 3:45 and 66:12 which show that the author of Quran further affirms his previous error by mistaking Amram, the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam as the grandfather of Jesus:

3:35 - (Remember) when the wife of 'Imran said: My Lord! I have vowed unto you that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo!  you, only you, are 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 your protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.
3:45 - (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
66:12 - And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient.

A hadith from Sahih Muslim states that the Christians of Najran actually realized this error and questioned Mughira bin Shu'ba, one of Muhammad's men regarding this. The Christians asserted that Moses was born long before Jesus. Mughira was clueless how to respond to this and met Muhammad, who understood his mistake and tried to cover it up by saying that the verse 19:28 was referring to another Harun. This incident is depicted in Sahih Muslim:

Sahih Muslim 25:5326
Mughira b. Shu'ba reported:
When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.

Muhammad obviously did not want to change the Quran and attempts to cover it up - "The people of old age used to name people after the names of Apostles". And Muhammad wanted to tell people that it is a mere coincidence that there was actually an Aaron/Harun as per the Torah AND that same person had a sister with the same name Maryam. Not to mention depicting Mary's father as having the same name as Miriam's father. It is well understandable because he would not want to admit having made a mistake, at all cost!

Is it still possible that Mary's father was actually named Imran and/or that she had a brother named Harun? If you are thinking that way, you need to think why no other book ever mentioned this for more than 600 years since Mary's era until the Quran mentioned it? The obvious answer is that the author of Quran borrowed it from the Torah while making a fatal error. Infact, multiple Christian traditions including the Gospel of James from the second century state that Mary's father was named Joachim:

Many Muslim apologists point out Bible verses depicting Jesus as "son of David", Quran verses depicting Abraham as "brother of Lut", Shuaib as the "brother of Midian" etc and state that it was common in semitic languages for such references to be made depicting a symbolic relationship. The problem however is that we have absolutely no examples in any semitic languages before 8th century of any person A being referred to as "brother/sister of person B" when B lived centuries before A. Whenever there are such references, A and B are contemporaries such as in the example of Abraham and Lut. And in case of Shuaib being referred to as "brother of Midian", Midian was his own tribe. And when Jesus is depicted as the son of David, there is no parallel Jesus character who was actually the son of David in the books that describe David's life. As such, the usage "son" is understood as "descendant". This brings us to another observation - the phrase "brother of" and "sister of" are not used to denote descendency. Rather, "son of" and "daughter of" are used when such references don't bring any confusion to parallel characters with the same name.

Additionally, the fact that the Quran verse 19:28 compares Mary to her father and mother right after making the usage "sister of Harun" increases the chances that the author was infact referring to her as the biological sister of Harun.

There is no way to reconcile this historical error. This only affirms that the author of Quran was actually borrowing second hand knowledge from scriptures such as the Torah and Gospels.


  1. Nice research and good findings...

  2. It is the tradition of the Jews to call someone in relation to someone else. Calling Mary sister of Aaron doesnt mean they're siblings.. similarly Jesus was called son of David many times in the NT.

    The people of Israel used to call people by adding words such as you "Son of..." or "Brother of...." or "Sister of...." When they called someone "O son of...." it's not literal. They didn't mean for that person to be the actual biological son of the person whom they used his name. Similarly, son of God does not mean god's biological son.

    This issue was brought to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and he responded to it clearly. Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: "When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun (Aaron)" (i. e. Mary) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book on General Behaviour (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 025, Number 5326)"

    Haroun is the name the Jews used to refer to as someone pious and righteous. As are the parents of Mary who are pious and righteous.

    As we clearly see from the Hadith of our beloved Prophet that the false claim made against him about Mary being the biological sister of Aaron is clearly refuted.

    1. Nice try !!!!!BUT read this>>>>>". There is no evidence from"old age" that anybody call "sister of Aaron".Talking about people of old age,no one in the Bible is called that way!!We can not see any evidence that they call anybody in Quran "sister of another great pious person such as brother of Aaron", "sister of Moses", and "brother of Moses etc...".No hadith indicating that they ever used "sister of Aaron" in any hadith neither!!!.
      Arabic word "sister" (ukhtun) is used 14 times in the Quran except this case that Mary called Aaron sister and 2 more cases( sister-nation" (7:38), and "sister-sign", (43:48) ) the rest are used as a living blood relatives.With Muhammad to be such a great role model no one ever called "sister" or "brother" after Muhammad's model!!
      conclusion: The custom of calling people "brother or sister" after people of old simply did not exist!!!

    2. If you are in search of truth then read the following article:

    3. Thank you Mr Jawad for advice. about 40 years ago someone recommended me to read Quran to find the truth.Exactly that happened, I read Quran profoundly for many yers and at the end I left Islam.

  3. Here is how an uninformed person on another site responded to this article. Below, I will explain why this person is wrong.

    This is the last time, I will allow you to post uniformed crap.

    You are are extremely arrogant and prejudiced. I will not allow your post in the future.

    You obviously are not aware that In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim" or "brother of Tamim". Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was called a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke 1, 5, as one "of the daughters of Aaron").

    1. There is zero evidence that anyone in any ancient Semitic culture referred to a living person as the "brother" or "sister" of a person long dead. Although we often meet the expression "brother of the sons of X," meaning "member of the X tribe," we never see "brother of X" if X was the ancestor.

      Muhammad's words, "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them ..." does not in fact mean, "They used to name their children after historical characters," but, "They used to compliment their friends by calling them 'brother' or 'sister' of dead saints."

      Muhammad therefore SAID that "sister of Aaron" meant "symbolic descendant of Aaron". But this was simply a quick fabrication by Muhammad when he was cornered with his mistake. He knew that the equally ignorant Mughira would have no way of checking this assertion. It is not true that the Semites ever had any such custom.

    2. Further, Mary was not a male-line descendant of Aaron. She may have been related to him in the female line, since Elizabeth was some kind of cousin to her, but it cannot be proved, since the Jews only recorded male-line ancestry. Muhammad himself said that only male-line ancestry should be cited and that it was an insult to one's father to claim ancestors who were only through the female line. (See Ibn Ishaq page 641.)

      Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Most theologians believe that the genealogy in Luke chapter 3 is in fact the genealogy of Mary rather than of Joseph. It is designed to show that Jesus was a biological as well as legal descendant of King David. Aaron, however, was from the tribe of Levi.

    3. As for Mughira ibn Shuja, has anyone bothered to research his biography? He is a textbook example of why Islam is bad for people, both Muslims and outsiders.

  4. Thanks a lot Diana :) That was very helpful and informative.

  5. Each and every words in the Holy Quran have never been different from one era to another since the days of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). There were no version 1.0 nor A,B,C. The Holy Quran is memorized by thousand of Huffaz (keepers) from all over the word, word by word, without a single difference between them so that make the contents could not be manipulated nor changed becoz they are words of God. It is by no chance that a large number of people would lie on a same thing for more than 1,400 years. That fact alone made it extremely trustworthy.

    My question to you is simple. How sure are u that your references​ to other Books are correct & the contents therein by no means could be manipulated/changed by any human from their day of their inceptions until now?

    Why there are so many versions of the other Books? Why can't them be memorised without a single difference from each other?

    Can u give any trustworthy evidence that all of them are telling the same exact facts, let alone that they are not in any way using the exact/identical word by word between the different versions? Whose words are they really?

    1. "Each and every words in the Holy Quran have never been different from one era to another since the days of the Prophet Muhammad " who said that?
      There re almost about up to 4000 differences between 2 version of Quran [ “HAFS”&”WARSH” ]>>>” القرآن الكريم وبهامشه التسهيل لقراءات التنزيل من الشاطبية والدرة محلى بشواهدهما مضمناً كتابي التيسير والتحبير – محمد فهد خاروف ، تقديم كريم راجح ، دار البيروتي ، دمشق ، ط 3 ، 1433 هـ / 2012 م ، (27.9 M) . "]]
      Muhammad Fahd Khaaruuf , examines different versions from 10 accepted readers and indicates about 4000 differences

      here is another one>>>> an encyclopedia (6 volumes) that shows differences of every single verse , it is called:
      ” معجم القراءات القرآنية مع مقدمة في القراءات وأشهر القراء “
      ” المؤلف: د. أحمد مختار عمر، و د. عبد العال سالم مكرم ”
      PDF for this book is available on line:
      [ [ ]


  6. Techno Philia, you are totally missing my point. Even if Torah was wrong about certain things, i have given you enough evidence that the author of Quran has clearly confused between two characters who were recorded to have lived about 1000 years apart.

    Is it a coincidence that Harun was stated by Torah to have a sister Maryam and there comes the Quran stating that Maryam the mother of Jesus was Harun's sister. You wanna throw that away? Fine.

    Is it then a coincidence that Torah has a character Imran as the father of Harun, Moses and Maryam and there comes the Quran stating that the father of Maryam the mother of Jesus was Imran. Sorry, this cannot be a coincidence.

    Coincidences dont come in pairs. The author of Quran heard the Torah, mistook the sister of Harun as Jesus' mother. Thats it.

  7. As for your claim that Quran was never changed and perfectly preserved, here is something that totally destroys that claim - The Sana manuscript of the Quran... There are numerous corrections that was made to the Quran... The Sana manuscript was washed and rewritten again by the Umayyads.'a_manuscript
    For example, in sura 2, verse 87, the lower text has wa-qaffaynā 'alā āthārihi whereas the standard text has wa-qaffaynā min ba'dihi

  8. Sana manuscript is one of the earliest manuscripts of the Quran.

  9. See this :

    The so-called manuscripts in Yemen are used out of desperation by the anti-Islamics. These are remnants of the misspelled Qurans and the altered ones that Caliph Uthman would've burnt. The Quran Scholars that compiled the Holy Book and wrote it with their own blessed hands is in our possessions. Anything found in remote lands, such as Yemen, Iraq, Iran or what have you are copies, and they do contain errors. They are not originals. The Quran that was compiled and what we have today did not original from Yemen, dear brother.

    I love the title "The end of the Quran as we know it". Perhaps the desperate and phony anti-Islamic should consider a title of "The end of praised pornography in the Bible as we know it". Of course I am being sarcastic, because the Bible does praise pornography.

    And what about the history of the Bible's compilation?? Man, if these people are only 10% critical of the Bible as they are of the Holy Quran, then I don't see how using their own logic they would not disown the Bible! I mean, some lousy found scrolls in Yemen that are only a copy of some of the Holy Quran is the end of our Holy Quran as we know it, simply because they contain misspellings and some missing words constitutes the end of our Holy Book, but the overwhelming amount of contradictions and fables and corruptions, and praised pornography in the Bible don't mean a thing to these people??

    Also, Abdallah bin Sabaa' and other Jews who fought Islam originated from Yemen. So these scrolls could very very well be doctored copies ON PURPOSE.

    Here is the bottom line dear brother: The Original and real Scrolls of the Holy Quran came from Madina, and we have them! I even have a picture of them in one of the links that is in the section that I gave above. Everything outside of this belongs to the fire. Like I said, Caliph Uthman would've happily burnt these (possibly doctored) scrolls from Yemen.

  10. //The so-called manuscripts in Yemen are used out of desperation by the anti-Islamics. These are remnants of the misspelled Qurans and the altered ones that Caliph Uthman would've burnt//

    Congrats for a bogus claim with zero evidence.

    //Also, Abdallah bin Sabaa' and other Jews who fought Islam originated from Yemen. So these scrolls could very very well be doctored copies ON PURPOSE.//

    If they wanted to alter the Quran on purpose, they could have done it way better than this. Your claim holds no water. So much as to say "Jews made it" lol.

    //Here is the bottom line dear brother: The Original and real Scrolls of the Holy Quran came from Madina, and we have them! I even have a picture of them in one of the links that is in the section that I gave above.//

    Show us the photo. There is none in the link you gave. Show us the DATING of the manuscript as well. Better be early.

  11. I appreciate your struggle to find truth. May God help you to follow the right path.
    I would like to say that even though if it is established that the Sana manuscripts are the oldest( a hypothetical scenario) then also it can't be the original Quran. Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him) and it was used to be memorised by him and all the companions of him. It would then be recited daily 5 times a day compulsorily , every year during the month of Ramadan whole of the Quran is being recited in an extra prayer called taraweeh. It was memorised word to word and in some in the exact rhythm of prophet , SO if any discrepancy is found would be corrected. in addition to this many scrolls older than that of Sana were found . To prevent further discrepancies and to have a standard , caliph uthman( ra) ordered to make a standard full fledged copy of Quran known as Uthmani standard Quran. Also caliph Uthman(R.A) destroyed other fabricated scrolls , so if Sana scrolls given to him at that time then he would surely have destroyed it too happily. So, this argument makes two points 1. Quran was preserved in the brains of many Huffaz and it was recited word to word by them most of the time, 5 times a day , and almost all of them recited it completely atleast once in year. 2. Caliph UThman destroyed many other fabricated scrolls so there is possibility that they were older than those of Sana too, Therefore saying that Sana manuscript id oldest so it is authentic and todays standard is deviated is saying false .Truth is other way round . If Quran is fabricated then why didn't it get deviated till now from the Uthmani standard? please note point that verbal Quran was standard before UThmani standard.

  12. Please read the whole text carefully.

    Dr. Gerd. R. Puin wrote an article under the title of “Observations on early Qur’an manuscripts in Sana”. This article concludes that:

    1) In a number of manuscripts the letter alif is written in an incorrect way
    2) There are some differences in the numbering of verses in some surah’s (chapters of the Qur’an)
    3) In 2 or 3 sheets he has found the surahs are written in an alternative order to that of the standard Quran

    Before I start to discuss his claims, it must be noted that Dr. Puin himself mentions that these discrepancies are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden and significant advances in the filed of Qur’anic studies.

    A Note on Recurrent Oral Tradition

    The Qur’an is preserved historical document. There are two intellectual traditions regarding the preservation of the Qur’an, an oral tradition and a textual tradition. I will not detail the textual tradition here, but it will suffice to mention that we have many manuscripts of the Qur’an dated back to the first century after the hijra. These can be compared to the current copies we have today, and it can be seen that nothing has been altered.

    The oral tradition of the Qur’an is a phenomenon unique to Islam. There is an estimate of over 20 Million hufadh (people who have memorised the Qur’an) in the world, and millions of these hufadh have learnt the Qur’an via a direct transmission starting from the Prophet (s) himself. The implications of this are astonishing. If millions of people who have memorised the Qur’an can trace their oral memorisation of the Qur’an down the centuries of teachers and scholars all the way back to the Prophet himself, who could doubt the authenticity of this oral tradition? Especially if these millions of hufadh live in different places in the world and have learnt the Qur’an via different teachers and scholars. The amount of varying oral transmissions and the amount of people who have learnt the Qur’an – in addition to there being no discrepancy in what they have memorised – is not a historical accident. The conclusion can only be that the Qur’an memorised today is the one that was taught 1400 years ago. There is no other rational explanation for this unique oral phenomenon.

    Arguments that attempt to undermine the oral tradition can only be described as conspiratorial and absurd. Unless someone argues that all of these hufadh throughout the ages – at different points in time and different places in the world – somehow came together to ensure that they all memorised and recited the exact same Qur’an, then there is no alternative explanation. To pose such an argument is irrational.

  13. Refuting the claims

    1) The incorrect writing of the alif at some places does not in any way effect the integrity of the text as a whole. This is due to the fact that the oral recurrent reporting of the Quranic text has always been used as the standard reference. The skeletal form or the representation of the text in the Arabic language has always been used as a secondary reference. Hence when a hafidh (someone who has memorised the Quran) refers to a copy of the Qur’an with a small mistake such as an incorrect alif, he will easily understand the word and make the correction. Take for example the word ‘understanding’ in English. If read the following way: “understndng” anyone could comprehend the meaning, especially if the incorrectly spelt word was placed in a sentence.

    2) Differences in the numbering of verses have never been a cause for concern with regards to the textual integrity of the Qur’anic text. Classical Muslim scholarship has debated many opinions on the where a verse starts and where one should finish, hence difference in numbering. This difference in numbering doesn’t affect the text as a whole. Even Flugel, a famous Orientalist numbered the Qur’an differently from the standard text. It must be noted that Dr Puin doesn’t mention changes to the text, only in the numbering of the verses, which has no impact on the text as a whole.

    3) It is well known that for academic and other purposes the Qur’an has been published from time to time with surahs arranged according to the order of their revelation. Thus for instance, A. Rodwell published a English translation of the Qur’an in 1861 rearranging the surahs according to their order of publication. And early in the twentieth century a Muslim of Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs according to the order of their revelation. Similarly Richard Bell made another translation in the early thirties with what he called a “critical rearrangement of the surahs.” Moreover, it has been reported that the companions of the Prophet Muhammed used to keep copies whose arrangement of surahs was different though there were no differences in the verse arrangement.

    The existence of a Qur’an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with what is called “revisions” – even though they are irrelevant and minor – is not evidence for a revised Qur’an. The oral tradition of the Qur’an is so well established that any minor textual “error” can be easily rectified. The arrangement of the surahs and verses do not effect the text but are arbitrary methods to counting and splitting the text up; which has no bearing on the textual integrity of the Qur’an.

  14. "The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur'anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur'an published in Cairo in which is written:

    Ibrhim next to Ibrhm
    Quran next to Qrn
    Simahum next to Simhum

    In the oldest Yemeni Qur'anic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common."

  15. You can cut paste last three comments and google them to find the source and extra reading.

  16. Let ask you 1 question are you a hindu or an atheist?
    if you are a hindu then how can you religion says that believing in one god is also a hindu and in no god is also a hindu?
    Does your religion gives you regulation how to distribute the wealth among children? Our says so . So please don't consider Quran as a war manual.

    1. Who told you that believing in no god is Hinduism? And why should a book tell me how to distribute wealth amongst my children? The problem with muslims is that they want to follow the kuran to the t.
      Remember this....wisdom overrides everything!

    2. Arrogance leads to fall.

      the topic about distribution of wealth is an answer to the claim that Quran is not a war manual.

      Following Quran isn't a problem.

      Ever heard of the term Nastik??

      Read the following:Āstika_and_nāstika

    3. Mr Jawad congrat for your effort .differences in Qurans is not only "alif" there are way more than that.
      Here are 4 categories of differences that you can find differences between at lest 2 existing Quran{Hafs,Warsh):
      a) Graphical/Basic Letter Differences
      b) Diacritical Differences
      c) Vowel Differences
      d) Basmalah Difference
      here is a link that you can see those differences>>>

  17. The lower text of the Sana manuscript has over 100 differences from todays quran. Entire words are sometimes added or subtracted. My next article will cover that in detail.

  18. Difference in sana manuscripts doesn't mean that the Quran of today is altered.


  20. Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste." Quran Ch.19 (27-28)

    The question is, what Mary (the mother of Jesus) has to do with Aaron or how Mary is the sister of Aaron? If you know Arabic you will understand the meaning, as you know in Arabic this is a respectful way of talking, the meaning her is that O Mary you came from a respectful family how could you do such thing? As you all know that Aaron as well as Moses (Peace be upon them) were leaderships of sons of Israel, in other words you Mary from the family of Aaron how could you do such thing.

  21. The arabic is very clear - "Yaa ukhta Haroona"... Meaning sister of Haroon. The Quran verse alleges that Jews used this phrase, not arabs.

    If the Jews call someone "sister of X" is a symbolic way, they use this to refer to CONTEMPORARIES, ie, people who lived round about the same time.

    Haroon and Mary did NOT live around the same time. This means the Quran verse has a problem.

    You say, she was being compared to her own family members. Exactly my point! She was being compared to her father, mother and brother Haroon, this is because the author of Quran thought Haroon was Mary's brother. This issue comes from his belief that the Miriam character in Torah was Jesus' mother.

  22. It is important to realise that my argument is not merely based on Quran 19:28 alone.

    I mentioned a second remarkable evidence for the same error - ie Quran 3:35 - 3:45 describing Imran's wife giving birth to Mary.

    Imran was the father of Moosa, Harun and Maryam... The author of Quran obviously mistook this Maryam as Jesus' mother.

    As for the hadith, it is very important to note ONE THING. That Muhammad gave this explanation ONLY AFTER the information of Moses having lived long before Jesus, being delivered by the Xtians of Najran. So, this hadith tells Muhammad's position after getting the vital information. To know his position before getting this information, you need to read the verses delivered as part of Quran, as they came earlier than the dialogue with Najranis.

    It is also curious to note that Muhammad sent Mughira to Najran to recite the Quran WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE MEANING OF A VERSE!! Ie, he couldnt answer the Najranis.

  23. Does the word imartu really mean only wife?