Talk:Mary in Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold??[edit]

Why is "regarded as the most saintly, pious, chaste, and virtuous woman ever" in bold in the intro? I'm changing it because there is no reason it should stand out from the rest of the section. But if there is a good reason given, then it should be bold; I just couldn't think why it is... --fanturmandos 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Islam[edit]

While this section is certainly interesting reading, it is completely unrelated to the article at hand. The article is about the Virgin Mary in Islam. However, Muhammed's place in Islam is unrelated to that subject as they existed nearly 600 years apart.

The section is also non-sequitor to itself as quickly turns into a treatise on the defintion of Islam and the Muslim faith rather than talk about Mary, Jesus, OR Muhammed.

This is very good material, but it might fit better in more general articles on Islam and comparative religion.

On second reading, I think if we take the last two paragraphs of the Jesus in Islam section and combine it with the middle paragraph of the Muhammed in Islam section to create a new section called "Comparison of Muslim and Christian Views on Mary and Jesus", we can make it work. --Shinmawa

rename[edit]

{{rename|Islamic view of Virgin Mary}}

Nobody else?--Striver 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Striver 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Why not name this article to "Islamic view of Mary"?Bless sins (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make more sense. It's not like Virgin is her first name and Mary's her last name. Statalyzer (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Persian Miniature[edit]

When looking in Commons, I found that this image comes from http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/christian_art_middle_east/mariam.html and this site says it is christian art of the Middle East, not muslim. So I think it should be removed from this article. --Amine Brikci N (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have substituted a Persian miniature for the completely inappropriate European painting. I don't believe anyone can prove the religion of whoever painted it, anyhow it is closer to a Muslim view of the subject.24.108.37.224 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Birth of Mary[edit]

Brothers, brothers, whoever wrote the section of the Birth of Mary. The Qur'an mentions two Marys: Mary the virgin, sister of Aaron, and the Mother of Jesus--pbuh; and the, also blessed Mary, daughter of Imran, sister of the prophets Aaaron and Moses--pbuth, the mother of Zakariya father of Yahya (John the Baptist), and she was married but I think her husband died before the birth of Zakariya or sometime after.

I hope anybody can confirm that, so I can bring some sources and make the needed edits. Thanks AdvertAdam talk 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amram or Imran?[edit]

A recent IP edit brought up the issue of Mary's father, from an Islamic point of view. I have reverted those edits because Imram is a disambiguation page which leads to Amram (a subsection under St. Joachim) and they both seem to refer to the same person. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject[edit]

The subject of this article is Mary in Islam, not Mary in secular thought. Therefore her titles are germane to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ in Kashmir by Aziz Kashmiri[edit]

This book was written in 1973 by Aziz Kashmiri, and is a source I would like to use. If anyone has read this book please discuss with me the use of the use of this book in fulfilling information for the article. The source is reliable however due to the nature of situation, not widespread.Joseph1100 (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that we don't accept your source and we don't approve of your edits here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit and I see no reason why a highly esteemed author and journalist in Kashmir is not accepted; "According to recent research and discovery, the actual burial place of Mariam is on Mount Murree, near Pindi Point in Pakistan, where during travel with her son Hazrat Immanu'el she encountered ill health."[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph1100 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Christ in Kashmir by Aziz Kashmiri
  2. ^ Talmud Jmmanuel by Judas Ischkerioth
Unfortunately, you don't bolster your case by referring to the "Talmud Jmmanuel" which is a strange hoaxlike document of UFO mysticism... AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article avoids a major issue[edit]

This article seems to carefully skirt around the major issue that calling Mary the "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Imran" (i.e. Amram, see verse 3:33), means that there's a high likelihood that the Qur'an confuses Mary mother of Jesus with Miriam sister of Moses (two figures who were at least a thousand years apart). AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a high likelihood that those two figures never existed at all, let alone a thousand years apart. The story in the Bible is not an historical account inaccurately retold by the Qur'an. It's a fable. Or two fables. Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Bible is infallible in every letter or a pack of lies actually doesn't make too much difference in this case. Either way, whether it's impeccably historical or pure fantasy, the Bible does have a strong chronological framework where certain things occur before other things, and it can be clearly stated that some events are widely separated in Biblical time, while other events occur closely together in Biblical time. If a character from the Book of Esther gets together with a character from the Pentateuch (as actually happens in the Qur'an), then any moderately attentive reader of the Bible would know that something has gone very wrong in terms of internal Biblical chronology. Since the Bible dates 500 or more years before the Qur'an, and the Qur'an has no real consistent internal chronology for anything beyond Muhammad's grandfather's lifetime, it's very hard to say in what sense the Qur'an is more reliable than the Bible with respect to biographies of Jewish and Christian figures... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say it does not make much difference but your premise is very much based on the assumption that these "Jewish and Christian figures" were real (historical) and that, consequently, there is factual information about them that the Qur'an misses. This is like debating which account about King Arthur is "more reliable". All that aside, are there reliable sources that comment on this inconsistency? Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not really based on that presumption. It's based on the fact that the Bible has a overall strong internal chronological framework, where some things occur before other things, and if A occurs before B and B occurs before C, then we can confidently say that A occurs before C. Both the purest fantasies having no relationship to reality and the most sober documentary histories can have consistent internal chronological frameworks. The Qur'an lacks such a chronological framework for things before Muhammad's grandfather's lifetime... AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Most of the on-line sources are part of Muslim vs. Christian controversialist debates, which might not be acceptable as Wikipedia sources. Within a few days (probably), I could go to the local university library and see what the Encyclopaedia of Islam has to say about it, if that might be helpful... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These results might also be helpful. This particularly. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two Miriams are not confused; an explanatory source is quoted in Biblical_and_Quranic_narratives. See also epithet for the phenomenon in general. And for a parallel, see a similar use of Son of David. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the assertion is that the Prophet Muhammad said (in the 7th century CE) that "Mary" the mother of "Jesus" (quotes used because these are all translations of their original names), who did not have a brother called "Aaron" in any Biblical tradition, was nevertheless called (in the 1st century CE) "sister of Aaron" (also undocumented in any Biblical tradition) in tribute to the earlier "Mary" sister of "Aaron", who himself was the the brother of "Moses" (who all supposedly lived in approximately the 14th century BCE)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.30 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
70.67.222.124 -- That explanation could apply to "Daughter of Imran" in isolation (though Amram is a semi-obscure figure in the Bible, who is not remotely as prominent as David, or some of the patriarchs of Genesis). However, there's no real tendency to call people the "brother" or "sister" of remote collateral relatives. The combination of "Daughter of Imran" and "Sister of Aaron" together strongly implies that there's been some kind of conflation between Miriam and Mary (who, as I'm sure you know, are both called "Maryam" in Arabic)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do of course agree with these points. This raises the question of who made the conflation, The Prophet or his informant(s), and consequently of whether and to what extent the existing, written biblical narratives may have been contradicted by either the word of an archangel or the orally transmitted narratives of Jews and Christians in 6th century CE Arabia, depending on one's historical interpretation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.90.255 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "daughter of Imran" implying an ancestor doesn't seem valid because Mary's mother is described as "the wife of Imran" (Quran 3:35). Thus according to the Quran, Imran is actually Mary's father, not a distant ancestor. However, the father of Moses is not mentioned in the Quran and not linked to Imran in any way. So I see no point in insisting on equating him to Imran just to confuse him with the father of Mary. I also find the choice of Aaron over Moses in "sister of Aaron" to be an indicator. Aaron is less notable in the Quran compared to Moses, so why didn't the Quran use "sister of Moses" or "sister of Aaron and Moses"? (the two-name form is mentioned in several verses) Elsewhere the Quran mentions separate families/descendants of Moses and Aaron, i.e., Aal Musa and Aal Harun, (Quran 2:248). That said, this confusion/Christian polemic is notable enough so it should mentioned in the article. Wiqi(55) 00:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the local university library and looked at the 1989 entry "Maryam" in vol. VI of the Encyclopaedia of Islam by A.J. Wensinck and Penelope Johnstone. It has one sentence explaining the idea — "Maryam is called a sister of Hārūn (sura XIX, 29), and the use of these three names ‘Imrān, Hārūn and Maryam, has led to the supposition that the Ḳur’ān does not clearly distinguish between the two Maryams of the Old and New Testament." — and several more pooh-poohing it (which are not all that convincing to me). People differ about how credible such Qur'anic confusion may be, but regardless of such disagreements, it does seem to be prominent enough to be at least mentioned on the Wikipedia article, as Wiqi55 has said above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be understood that the Qur'an's calling Maryam the sister of Hārūn (sura XIX, 29) is quoting the speech of people spoken in a state of shock at Maryam's possession of the babe as she returns to the town. The verses before (her predicament) and after (her defense by Jesus) this one have to be read in order for this context to be clear. In addition without a proper understanding of Arabic idiom and usage of the word 'sister' the interpretations and assertions here are poorly qualified. In the exegesis (tafsir) it is clear that the term was used to indicate the piety that was expected of Maryam (in contrast to her bringing the babe) and also a reference to lineage rather than a literal reference to a sibling relationship. There is no Qur'anic confusion if the language is understood but it is understandable the poorly equipped reader may be easily confused. FarazR 22:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.45.33 (talk) [reply]

To editor Oskimua: Please don't confuse Miriam with Mary. They're two different people. Your blanket assertions aren't helping. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a rather unfair comment. Oskimua (talk · contribs) removed some things that hid the fact that Islam confuses the two! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template use was deleted years ago. We can't say that Islam "confuses" the two, but rather what the reliable sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is also common practice in some scholarly works to use the name "Imran" and allow for the inference that it refers to Joachim (to whom it is linked in this article) without mentioning the possible contradiction. However, al-Tabari, who is cited here as an authority with respect to the identity of Mary's mother, also gives the lineage--on the authority of Ibn Ishaq--of Imran (in this case, the literal father of Mary), stating that he is the son of Josiah (7th c. BC). From this point, the genealogy is identical to that of Saint Joseph in the Gospel of Matthew, making Imran (and by extension, Mary) descendants of the Tribe of Judah rather than of the Tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe) for which she was consecrated to the Temple service in Islamic tradition. Therefore, we have yet another contradiction in the Islamic sources, and this is all related in Gabriel Said Reynolds' book, The Qur'an in Its Historical Context (Routledge) pp. 164-165, wherein he also admits that "many modern scholars" are inclined to identify Imran with the biblical Amram, father of Miriam and Aaron. Though he ultimately dismisses the data and allegorises these names based on a logical non sequitur, this is sufficient to suggest that it deserves some mention, that is, unless we're deliberately trying to push a pro-Islamic bias, of course. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 01:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we call Maryam "Mary"?[edit]

I changed most of the words "Mary" to "Maryam", and this was reverted with the comment that the article is named "Mary in Islam". Well of course the article is called "Mary in Islam", because Christians refer to Maryam as either "Mary" or "Maria" in English. If we called it "Maryam in Islam" most people wouldn't know whom it was talking about!

The fact is her name was Maryam. Even in Hebrew, at the time. (Note that the Septuagint refers to "Miriam", the sister of Aaron, as "Maryam", Μαριαμ in Greek letters, showing that this was how the name was pronounced 2000 years ago. Later in Hebrew an "a" in a position like this became an "i", as we see in other names like Midian and Bil`am for Madian and Bal`am.)

The Arabs (as well as the Aramaic speakers) have continued to pronounce her name correctly. Why should we, in an article about how she is viewed in Islam, use the truncated form "Mary" which they (the Muslims) hardly ever use? It smacks of "cultural imperialism", or at least "provincialism".

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Kvaalen: I have reverted you again and warned you about edit warring. You shall adhere to consensus. In regards to this issue, the article is so named because of WP:COMMONNAME. It only makes sense, therefore, for the sentences about the subject to match the name of the article. It does not matter what she was actually called or by whom. If you don't like the name of the article, then that's a separate discussion. For my mind, the two go together. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't reading what I said correctly. I am not objecting to the name of the article. I do think it's wrong to use a form of her name throughout the article which is not what the Muslims call her (even English-speaking Muslims I dare say). They use her real name. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles, Translation. It has long been the standard to use the English version with the alternate as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mary" is not a translation! It's an anglicized derivative of a name. My edit did use both. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_in_Islam&oldid=1208846932"