An argument put forward by Christians: The quran says that Mary Is the daughter of imran and sister of aaron. Quran 19:28 > O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste." Quran 3:35 >[Mention, O Muhammad], 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." As we know from history, Miriam the sister of Moses is the sister of aaron as well as daughter of amram. Now they use this to claim that the quran mistook Miriam as the mother of isa and daughter of Joachim My questions are: 1) is imran universally identified as amram. Can we make a case for imran being Joachim 2) if so how do we reconcile the similarities between Miriam and Mary 3) if we use the hadith sahih muslim 2135 to reconcile the sister of haroon part , can anybody explain wether the hadith is trying to say if Mary (mother of isa (as)) had a brother named haroon(any historical verification?) or that Mary was referred to with the name of haroon. But we would still have to reconcile her as the daughter of amram. Please don't close this post claiming that it was previously answered because I have read each question and it does not answer each question I've asked.

Which is the correct islamic honorific to use after Mariam(Mother of Eeasaa [A.W])? - رضي الله عنه (Radi Allahu 'anha) or - عليه والسلام (Alahi wasllam) Same question for Asiya, wife of the Fir-aun. Both these ladies' names are mentioned in Al-Quran. I need to know the Islamic honorific for these two and What is the reason for that?

As this question has been asked previously, or rather, it has been asked in a different, more simple way; There is no clear or sufficient answer that I can find. Let me premise this by saying, I have no hostility towards Muslims. Or Christians. I was a student of 'Philosphy and Religion' (not 'of' Religion) and focused on Islam and Christianity primarily. I'm self-taught Arabic with English as my first language, being born in America. Debate is just a pastime for me. I enjoy it. Some people like video games, debate is my video game. No more, no less. With that being said, I also need to add that my question is not simply that the representation of the Trinity is incorrect, that's only a portion. This is a three part problem that I'm curious how Muslims will, or would, answer. **Surah 5:116** >"وَإِذْ قَالَ ٱللَّهُ يَـٰعِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ ءَأَنتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ ٱتَّخِذُونِى وَأُمِّىَ إِلَـٰهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ ۖ قَالَ سُبْحَـٰنَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِىٓ أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِى بِحَقٍّ ۚ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُۥ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُۥ ۚ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِى نَفْسِى وَلَآ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِى نَفْسِكَ ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلَّـٰمُ ٱلْغُيُوبِ" **English Translation** - *I use a combination of Pickthall and Saheeh International as they seem to be the most accurate to the Arabic we can get when combined, as well as some direct translations where it makes sense in English)* >And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Maryam! Did you ever say to the people: Take me and my mother (as) **two gods** (إِلَـٰهَيْنِ 'ilāhayni') beside Allah? He said: Glory be to you! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). If I had said it, then surely You would have known it. You know what is (hidden) in myself (nafsī), and I know not what is (hidden) in Yourself (nafsika). Indeed, you are the All-Knower ('allāmu) of the unseen I'm going to address the two main issues I can see clearly through the time I've speant studying and hopefully a sufficient response could be given to interact with, which would be excellent, as that is the goal. - The first issue would be the one addressed most often. Here we can see that part of the 'Trinitarian belief' is, as in other ayah, being questioned and 'falsified.' However, we also know that the Trinitarian belief is not, 'Allah, The Son, and Mary.' I don't think I need to explain the makeup of the Christian's Trinity for anyone here, but of course this is incorrect. I have seen some Muslims argue that it is possible that there was a time where some Christians actually were taking Jesus and Mary as gods along with Allah. This is incorrect for a couple reasons. First, if people were worshiping Mary and Jesus as gods with Allah, then they wouldn't be Christians. Christianity, the term Christian, was defined a long time before Muhammad. Regardless, Allah *should* know the Christian belief at that time. Secondly, any people who take Jesus and Mary as gods would also not be considered Christian because in Christianity, whether or not any Muslim or other religions understands it or agree with it, is a monotheistic Religion by definition. Therefore, no one saying something akin to even Jesus and The Father being two gods would be Christian whatsoever. Or the Holy Spirit (Ruh Al Qudus) - The next main issue I see, besides Allah not knowing the Trinity there, is Allah asking Jesus if he took himself and Mary as gods alongside him. There's a couple problems here. First, even **if** the Trinitarian belief replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary, and Allah said Ruh Al Qudus instead, Jesus would not be lying by saying he did not. Again going back to the 'two gods' issue. The Trinitarian belief, Christianity, again, is one God. Then, as the ayah says, Allah is the 'allāmu,' the All-Knower, and of course he is also named so in the Qur'an. The other two ayah about the Trinity simply have Allah telling them to desist from saying 'three' or no 'two-thirds, as statements rather than questions or questioning anyone. So, the All-Knower, asking Jesus if he did 'some thing' seems odd when surely his statement alone would be enough. Such as, rather than making a point to question Jesus, he would say, he told Jesus of what his followers claim, then having Jesus state that is not what he taught. That would be simple enough and end the debate. Yet it would still lack any meaning unless Mary and 'two gods' was changed. Immediately afterwards, in ayah 117, he tells Allah that he only said what Allah ordered him to say. This is something the 'allāmu would surely know. Now it becomes that we have no answer from the Qur'an whether or not Jesus confessed to not teaching that he, the father, and Holy Spirit **are God.** The common argument against this is that it is for narrative purposes to specifically show Jesus denying it. I ask that we don't get bogged down on this one specific aspect of 117, but to take it in its entirety. This is why I prefaced with Jesus saying 'no,' would not oppose the Trinitarian belief. Of course Jesus did not tell people to take him **and** his mother as two gods with Allah. He did not teach that himself and The Father were two gods, or himself and the Holy Spirit were two gods. Therefore, what is the purpose of this ayah? I want to add some more evidence to my points before fully concluding so that any response can get directly to the point and hopefully a straight answer. For Christians, they would argue and show documentation that the belief of the Trinity was being preached as early as 1CE. This could be refuted, so we can simply go with what cannot be refuted in context to the ayah. We can at least say, as a matter of fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity was finalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325CE. Therefore showing that the doctrine was well-established long before the time of Muhammad. This is irrelevant to an all-knowing God, however, this is just evidence to show that the doctrine was with the Christians long before, and totally established by, the time of Muhammad. Now to conclude with points, my opinion, and another common refutation, as well as sources. Another refutation that I have, surprisingly, heard, is that this ayah, 116, isn't even talking about the the Trinity, and is talking about some group that believed this. That is an obvious problem. The people who followed Christ, Jesus, are Christians. If people believed that Jesus and Mary were gods, and Jesus is just saying, no I didn't say this, and whatever niche group Allah could be talking about, would mean that this ayah actually serves no purpose as nobody believes this is what Jesus taught. Besides the fact that scholars agree, tafsirs explain, that it is talking about this belief, I'd rather want to believe that **all** ayah in the Holy Qur'an actually have meaning behind them, some purpose for being told. In the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, he in fact does state that this is not about Allah not having the knowledge, but about admonishing his people who call themselves **Christians** and the one who they call 'God' (Jesus) is himself admitting to the contrary. Now he has established this is speaking about Christians, followers of Christ and his teachings, not some niche group of people who worship Jesus and Mary as two gods. Ibn Kathir, however, seems to leave out Mary altogether while also changing the implication from them being 'two gods' to simply the correct Christian belief that they say Jesus is God. This is not at all what the ayah is saying and I see Ibn Kathir as either being completely dishonest or refusing to address the ayah properly, although I have not read his tafsir in Arabic, and while I could be missing something (I'll double check) I highly doubt it would lend strength to a refutation. Again, even if Jesus denies this here and says that is not what he taught people, it remains true and says nothing, as no Christian, now or at the time of Muhammad or prior, believes/d Christianity teaches that Jesus, and any other person's in the Trinity, are more than one God. Once more, the doctrine of the Trinity, One God, three hypostatic unions, was already well-established. As for my opinion, for this ayah to be a clear, and detailed explanation of all things, it should directly refute the actual doctrine of the Trinity. To say, Jesus, did you say/teach that you, the Holy Spirit, and I *are God?* Or even replacing Maryam with ruh Al Qudus would suffice but the word 'ilāhayni' has to be removed from the text either way. **Sources For Context** *'The Qur'an is a detailed explanation of all things (in the revelation) - Quran, Surah 12:111* *Allah addressing to falsify the Trinity, the other ayah about the Trinity - Quran, Surah 5:73, 4:171, and 5:116 (this ayah) is directly referenced in multiple sources as one of the three ayah referencing the Trinity* **Finalization of the doctrine of the Trinity at the First Council of Nicaea** - *Kauffman, Timothy F. (May–June 2016). "Nicæa and the Roman Precedent" (PDF). The Trinity Review (334, 335). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 August 2016. Retrieved 22 June 2016* *"Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed". www.bible.ca. Retrieved 29 September 2021* *Fairbairn, Donald (2009), "Life in the Trinity, Downers Grove:" InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-3873-8, retrieved 24 February 2014* **Earliest existing reference of the Trinity** - *Theophilus of Antioch (AD 115–181) ref. "Philip Schaff: Fathers of the Second Century: 0107=101 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library". ccel.org. Retrieved 27 April 2023.*

In quran 5:73 those are declared disbelievers who believe in trinity. My question is after mentioning trinity why does quran mentions the two persons as Jesus and Mary in 5:75. Now anyone would conclude from this that quran is assuming mary to be a part of triniry. I know though she is worshipped but what's the point of mentioning her in the context of quran 5:73?

Can Maryam be considered a prophet even though she's a female? She seems to have had angelic meetings/messages and held in such high esteem by both Allah and followers. I'm new to understanding Islam, so by what basis is one considered a prophet?

First of all, I apologize for the length of this question. But I think this is a very important subject to think about. Majority of Muslims believe that Imran in the Quran is father of Mary. But I think muslims are making a mistake. For the following reasons, I think Imran in the Quran is the father of Musa (pbuh) and Harun (pbuh), not the father of Mary: 1) In the Jewish scriptures, the father of Musa (pbuh) and Harun (pbuh) is "Amram". *Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years. (Exodus 6:20)* 2) In the New Testament, Mary is a relative/cousin of Elizabeth, who is from the lineage of Aaron (Harun). So this means Imran (Amram) is the ancestor of Mary. 3) Ancient biblical manuscripts have shown that the father of Mary was named "Joachim", not "Amram", nor "Imran". 4) In the Quran, Allah refers to Mary (mother of Jesus) as the "Ubnata Imran" in Surah Tahrim, Ayah 12. "Ubnata Imran" literally translates to "Daughter of Imran", but in Arabic tradition, this can also mean "grand-daughter of Imran" or "great grand-daughter of Imran" or "female descendant of Imran". 5) In the Quran, Allah refers to Mary (mother of Jesus) as "Ukhtu Harun" in Surah Maryam, Ayah 28. "Ukhtu Harun" translates to "Sister of Harun". Anyone who understands the language of the Quran should know that "sister" in the Quran can also refer to female descendant. So Mary is the female descendant of Harun (pbuh) and Imran. Not the daughter of Imran. 6) In the Quran, the mother of Mary is unnamed but she is called "Umra'atu Imran" in Surah Imran, Ayah 33. According to the English translated Quran, this translates to "Wife of Imran". However, in Arabic, "Umra'atu Imran" can also mean "Woman of Imran". This could mean that Mary is not the daughter of Imran, but her descendant. 7) Ancient biblical manuscripts have shown that the father of Mary was named "Joachim", not "Amram", not "Imran". 8) Allah says in Surah Imran, Ayah 33: *God did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above all people (Quran 3:33)* According to most Islamic scholars, Imran in this ayah refers to Amram, the father of Musa (pbuh) and Harun (pbuh).

The real name if the mother of Jesus Christ is Miriam. Why has the Quran copied the wrong name Mary when it should say her real name Miriam?

Jesus and Mary in Christianity is Prophet Isa and his mother Maryam in Islam; see Jesus in Islam . It seems Christianity doesn't have the same restrictions as Islam regarding depictions of Jesus, and they're everywhere, particularly around Christmas. Muslims avoid looking at images of Prophet Muhammad, but appear less adverse to images of Prophet Isa. There's this question https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/12077/17163 , which is currently unanswered. However, I'm interested in a different question which might also play a role: **Question**: Are Christian depictions of Jesus and Mary considered accurate?

In most ancient Semitic languages and times, it seems that a person was usually known by their name followed by "son of [their father's name]." Is there a reason, **besides the virgin birth,** that Isa ibn Maryam is identified as the son of **Mary** in the Qur'an (i.e. a woman, the mother; e.g. such as the high devotion Christians had at the beginnings of Islam for Mary the mother of Jesus), rather than, say, David, as Jesus is in the New Testament (it being, as far as I know, almost unheard of that a man is identified as the son of his mother specifically unless the context makes it relevant)?

I read the verses 19:23 and 19:25 which says: > And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten."` ... > And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates. So Maryam is pregnant and she is in pain because of the pregnancy. And Allah gives her dates and water to "calm her down". But my question is: Are dates and water really that what a woman needs before giving a birth, full in pain? I mean Allah knows everything and is always doing the right. Is this verse just a metaphor?

I don't understand the last part of verse 26 of chapter 19. Whether Bibi Maryam was told to fast or to pretend to fast? If we take first meaning, then how can she drink and eat while fasting as mentioned in the same verse. If we take second meaning, then how Allah (or her son Isa (A.S)) can command her to lie. Thanks.

Reading Quran 19:27,28 Christians and Jews encounter something that raises alarms. > 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." The same alarms were raised in Najran, as we see recorded in [Sahih Muslim #5326](https://sunnah.com/muslim/38/13) > 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 (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. The 2 problems the Christians faced in this passage is that... 1. They understood the Quran saying that Aaron's sister (who lived hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus) was the same person as the Theotokos, making Dei Genetrix about 1400 years old when giving birth to the True God. 2. They seen that the author of the Quran confused Maryam the sister of Moses with Mary the Mother of God. The first being problematic to their christian faith, in the understanding that the Light of the world was born of a young woman, but the greatest miracle in fertility & life. The second being problematic to the legitimacy of the Quran, therefore the legitimacy of the prophetic career of Muhammad. Luckily Muhammad explains the situation, saying that it was simply the way people were named in the time, simply a metaphor. Sounds like a closed case, but not yet, there is no evidence (I am able to find) showing in that time (of the Mother of God) where an ordinary person would be named "sister of (pious ancient person)". (Judea preferred) If there is no evidence, then I can only see 4 situations. 1. This particular part of the Quran is **miraculously** the **only** part of history where this is recorded (600 years after the era). 2. There is evidence **fully satisfying** the pending evidence request of many Christians for hundreds of years, making it public and finally settling the centuries long evidence request. 3. The Hadith quoted is unreliable and the mother of the Lamb of God was truly very old at the birth of the God Incarnate. 4. Or there is simply an error in the infallible word of God, making Muhammad a fraud. My question is if there's any evidence backing up the metaphor explained by Muhammad.

As a new Muslim, I'm seeking new Muslim-appropriate female role models; the obvious one to consider is Mary, mother of Jesus. > Mary, the mother of Jesus, is considered one of the most righteous and greatest women in the Islamic religion. -- Wikipedia Allah affirms her significance in the Qur'an: > And [mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. O Mary, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those who bow [in prayer]." -- Qur'an 3:42-43 **Question**: What can a modern Muslimah learn from Mary, mother of Jesus? The obvious lesson is that of chastity, but I get the feeling I have only a superficial understanding of this. Furthermore, I expect there will be other lessons to learn from the story of Mary, which I am currently unaware of. AboutIslam write: > Maryam’s life teaches us to trust in Allah and do His will. What more could a Muslim want than that? But this seems overly simplistic; there's plenty more a Muslim, including the modern Muslimah, would want: family, career, travel, etc. Can the life of "the most righteous and greatest women in the Islamic religion" really be summarized as simply "trust in Allah"? And is there really nothing for Muslim women in particular?

I'm reading Sura 19, Maryam, and while I've always been familiar of the birth narrative of Isa, I never pondered how the Qur'an reconciles the immaculate conception of Maryam & miraculous birth of Isa. Of course, Islam does not believe that Isa is the son of God, but who then is Isa's father? Isa's identifying title as "son of Mary," places unconventional emphasis on Mary's motherhood because for both texts and cultures at this time, individuals were identified by their male relatives. So does the Quran and its commentators not have any statement on who Isa's father is? Indeed it was miraculous, but how/why would Isa be born without a father?