The Con­cep­tion of Jesus & The Per­vert­ed Mis­sion­ary Claims

The Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies are tra­di­tion­al­ly known for their bla­tant abuse and mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions of the text of the noble Qur’an with the most dis­gust­ing and lurid inter­pre­ta­tions imag­in­able. One par­tic­u­lar mis­sion­ary, Sam Shamoun, has con­tin­ued this ​“fine” tra­di­tion of his pre­de­ces­sors by impos­ing his per­vert­ed and repul­sive under­stand­ing of the con­cep­tion of Jesus (P) on the Qur’an­ic text which describes the inci­dent. Our attempt here is to refute this mis­sion­ary from the exe­gesi­cal and lex­i­cal sources made avail­able to us, insha’allah.

Gen­er­al Intro­duc­tion to Qur’an 66:12

Before we dis­cuss the mis­sion­ary’s ugly inter­pre­ta­tion of Sura’ al-Tahrim, we would like to note the com­ment made by Sheikh Rah­mat­ul­lah al-Kiran­wi al-Hin­di con­cern­ing his oppo­nent, the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary Pfander :

The third habit : he (Pfan­der) trans­lates Qur’?nic vers­es and inter­prets them accord­ing to his own opin­ion in order to object against them as he alleges. He claims that the cor­rect inter­pre­ta­tion and the cor­rect trans­la­tion is what he trans­lates and inter­prets, not what schol­ars of Islam and exegetes of the Qur’an state.[1]

Indeed, the same obser­va­tion applies here ! The Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies have brought the most dis­gust­ing inter­pre­ta­tion to the fol­low­ing Qur’an­ic verse :

“And Mary the daugh­ter of ​‘Imran, who guard­ed her farj ; and We breathed into it of Our Spir­it.” (Qur’?n, 66:12)

The Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun claims that the Archangel Gabriel had breathed into the vagi­na of Mary in order the con­cep­tion of Jesus (P) takes place. He alleges that the above Qur’an­ic verse ide­al­ly gives this under­stand­ing. Although he quotes Imam Ibn Kathir, he sim­ply (or inten­tion­al­ly) fails to under­stand what the Imam is say­ing. All Mus­lim com­men­ta­tors and schol­ars had indis­putably agreed that Angel Gabriel breathed into the open­ing of Mary’s gar­ment, not into her vagi­na as the mis­sion­ary’s mind fantasizes.

It is report­ed on author­i­ty of Ibn Abbas and Qatad ? that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary, the daugh­ter of ​‘Imran, in a human form. He approached her in order to breathe the spir­it of Jesus (P) into her, but she pre­vent­ed him from even approach­ing the open­ing of her gar­ment ; this is the mean­ing of Mary guard­ing her farj because the Ara­bic word farj applies to any open­ing, gap or slit. When Gabriel intro­duced him­self to Mary and informed her about his mis­sion, she let him breathe the spir­it of Jesus (P) into the open­ing of her gar­ment ; this is the mean­ing of breath­ing into her farj. How­ev­er, Mr. Shamoun — with­out a glance of hes­i­ta­tion — assumed that the Ara­bic word farj must refer to the vagi­na of Mary and that Gabriel had direct­ly breathed into her vagi­na. Astaghfirullah !

The emi­nent Imam Ibn Jarir At-Tabari states, in his com­men­tary known as Jami?-ul-Bayan, the following :

All?h Whose remem­brance is exalt­ed says ​“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” He means : who pro­tect­ed the open­ing of her gar­ment from Gabriel (peace be upon him); any open­ing or tear in the gar­ment is called farj, as well any crack in a wall, or a win­dow in a roof is a farj. His say­ing ​“and We breathed into it of Our spir­it” He means : We breathed into it i.e., into the open­ing of her gar­ment ; this is her farj. From Our Spir­it i.e., from Gabriel ; he is the Spir­it. Exegetes have giv­en sim­i­lar state­ments ; Ibn Abdul-A’la said : Ibn Thawr said on author­i­ty of Mu’am­mer on author­i­ty of Qata­da that ​“and We breathed into it of Our spir­it” means We breathed into the open­ing (of her gar­ment) from our spirit.[2]

Imam Al-Qur­tubi in Al-Gami’ le Ahkam-el-Qur’an states that

​“who guard­ed her farj” — from lewd­ness. Com­men­ta­tors say the farj is intend­ed to mean the open­ing (of the gar­ment) because He says ​“We breathed into it of Our spir­it”; Gabriel (peace be upon him) breathed but into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) and did not breathe into her pri­vate part. In the recita­tion of Ubai ​“We breathed into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) of Our Spir­it”. Every open­ing in the dress is called farj like His say­ing ​“and there are no flaws (furooj, sing. farj) in it?” (Holy Qur’an 50:6). It is prob­a­ble that she guard­ed her pri­vate part and he breathed into the open­ing of her (garment).[3]

Imam Ibn Kath?r in Tafsir-ul-Qur’an Al-‘Azim states that

​“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” i.e., pro­tect­ed and puri­fied it ; guard­ing (ihsan) is chasti­ty and absence of immoral­i­ty. ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” — by the Archangel Gabriel for God the Most High sent him to her, so he shaped in the form of a man. God the Most High com­mand­ed him to breathe with his mouth into the open­ing of her gar­ment, the breath then descend­ed and entered through her pri­vate part, and she con­ceived Jesus (peace be upon him).[4]

Al-Galalan Al-Mahall ? and As-Suyu­ti also states

​“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” - pro­tect­ed it. ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” ? it is Gabriel when he breathed into the open­ing of her gar­ment what God the Exalt­ed had cre­at­ed, so it reached her pri­vate part and she con­ceived Jesus.[5]

Ash-Shawkani in Fath-ul-Qadir states,

​“who guard­ed her farj” from lewd­ness, its exe­ge­sis has been men­tioned in Surat-un-Nisaa. Com­men­ta­tors state that the farj is intend­ed to mean the open­ing (of the gar­ment) for His say­ing ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it”; Gabriel breathed but into the open­ing of her gar­ment and she con­ceived Jesus.[6]

As-Samar­qand ? in Bahr-ul-‘Ulum states,

​“who guard­ed her farj” means who puri­fied her­self from lewd­ness. ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” means We sent (Angel) Gabriel (peace be upon him) so he breathed into the open­ing of her garment.

Al-Mawar­di in An-Nukat wa Al-‘Uyun states,

​“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” com­men­ta­tors state that the farj is intend­ed to mean the open­ing (of the gar­ment) for He says ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it”; and Gabriel breathed but into the open­ing of her (gar­ment).

Al-Bagh­wi in Ma’alem-ut-Tanzil states,

​“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj ; and We breathed into it of Our spir­it”  — into the open­ing of her garment.

Fakhr-ud-Din Ar-Razi in Mafateh-ul-Ghaib states,

​“guard­ed” from lewd­ness because she was accused of adul­tery. The farj is under­stood lit­er­al­ly ; Ibn ​‘Abbas said Gabriel breathed into the open­ing of the gar­ment ; he extend­ed it with his fin­gers and breathed into it. every open­ing, tear, et. cetera in the gar­ment is named farj.

The Shi’ite Imam At-Tabarasi in Maj­mu-ul-Bayan states,

​“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” i.e., pro­tect­ed her pri­vate part from (indulging in) sin and puri­fied her­self from pro­hib­it­ed things. It is said, it means she pre­vent­ed her­self from hav­ing a hus­band. ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” i.e., Gabriel breathed with Our com­mand into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) from Our spir­it, relat­ed on author­i­ty of Qata­da. Al-Far­ra ? said, every slit is a farj ; (the phrase) ​“she guard­ed her farj” means she pro­tect­ed the open­ing of her gar­ment from Gabriel.

The above is ade­quate to refute the filthy mis­sion­ary argu­ment. As-Suhaili in his dis­cus­sion of this verse also notes that

Do not allow your imag­i­na­tion to go else­where ; this is one of del­i­cate ges­tures because the Qur’?n is more exalt­ed in mean­ings, more bal­anced in words, more del­i­cate in ges­tures and bet­ter in expres­sion than aim­ing at what the igno­ran­t’s delu­sion pre­sumes espe­cial­ly the breath came from the Holy Spir­it (Ruh-ul-Quds) at the com­mand of the Holi­est (Al-Qud­dos). So, add the Holy to the Holi­est and exalt the holy pure woman above false delu­sion and guess­work.[7]

Lit­er­al and metaphor­ic mean­ings of the Ara­bic word ​“farj”

Lit­er­al­ly the word farj means any open­ing, fis­sure, rent, slit, tear or gap between two objects ; the sky is described in the Qur’?n as hav­ing no furooj (sing. farj) in it i.e., no gaps or tears (Qur’?n 60:5). In the Ara­bic-Ara­bic Dic­tio­nary pub­lished by Maj­ma ? Al-Lughat Al-?Arabiyyah (The Coun­cil of Ara­bic Lan­guage) in Egypt we read that

Al-Farj : the fis­sure between two things pl. Furooj. In the Holy Qur’?n ​“and there are no furooj in it?” i.e., cracks and tears.[8]

Metaphor­i­cal­ly the word can be used as a ref­er­ence to male gen­i­tal organs[9] and less com­mon­ly to female gen­i­tal organs[10]. This use of the word serves as a polite expres­sion instead of utter­ing the explic­it names of pri­vate organs, this is the rea­son why it is present in Islam­ic texts relat­ing to mar­i­tal life and oth­er sex­u­al issues. We are aware that the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun and oth­ers whom he quotes man­aged to dis­play the word as a filthy one and to show Mus­lims as peo­ple who are accus­tomed to utter dirt and filth even in their reli­gious dis­cus­sions ! Noth­ing is fur­ther from the truth ; the believ­er is sup­posed nei­ther to use gut­ter expres­sions nor to curse fre­quent­ly as God?s Messenger(P) has com­mand­ed in the sound tra­di­tion relat­ed by At-Tirmith?, Ahm?d ibn Han­bal and Al-Baih?qi on author­i­ty of Abdull?h Ibn Mas’?d[11]. And to God belongs the judge­ment in all affairs.

Now, we move on to a rel­e­vant issue : when to under­stand the word lit­er­al­ly and when to metaphor­i­cal­ly inter­pret it in a giv­en text. Under the title of ​“Mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion”, Dr. Yus?f Al-Qar?d?w ? notes that

It is estab­lished before peo­ple of knowl­edge that it is pri­or to main­tain the explic­it mean­ings of texts which refer to their orig­i­nal mean­ings deter­mined by the lan­guage. But inter­pre­ta­tion of texts by shift­ing them from their orig­i­nal mean­ings to metaphor­ic ones is an indis­putable issue among schol­ars well versed in the Qur’?n and Sun­nah. Some may not call it metaphor (majaz) and give it anoth­er name as Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, gram­mar­i­ans who pre­ced­ed him and his dis­ci­ples who fol­lowed him have done. We are not inter­est­ed in names and titles as long as the iden­ti­ties and con­tents are clear ; they all agree upon shift­ing the word from its lit­er­al mean­ing into anoth­er hid­den mean­ing. What is actu­al­ly impor­tant is that this should not take place with­out the evi­dence that neces­si­tates diver­sion from the lit­er­al mean­ing to a metaphor­ic one, oth­er­wise trust in the lan­guage and its func­tion would be nul­li­fied. If we find the proof or the evi­dence, we can divert the word from the explic­it mean­ing to an implic­it one and from truth to metaphor.[12]

After giv­ing sev­er­al exam­ples, he then added that

Inter­pre­ta­tion (ta?w?l) is then accept­able if it is indi­cat­ed by an authen­tic proof from the lan­guage, the law or the intel­lect, oth­er­wise it is reject­ed no mat­ter who inter­prets. That is why the most seri­ous dan­ger to whom texts are exposed is mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion i.e., explain­ing the texts in a way that diverts them from the pur­pose of All?h and His Apos­tle to anoth­er pur­pose sought by the inter­preter. These mean­ings them­selves could be cor­rect but the texts do not prove them. The mean­ings them­selves could be cor­rupt­ed and the texts do not prove them, then cor­rup­tion lies in the proof and the proved.[13]

Tech­ni­cal­ly, inter­pre­ta­tion (ta?w?l) means a diver­sion of the word from its explic­it mean­ing to a pos­si­ble over­rid­den mean­ing due to pres­ence of an evi­dence that makes it overriding.[14] This is the accept­able form of inter­pre­ta­tion. First, diver­sion should be to a pos­si­ble mean­ing. Sec­ond­ly, evi­dence is required to sup­port this pos­si­ble mean­ing. Third­ly, this evi­dence should be over­pow­er­ing for an over­pow­ered or an equiv­o­cal evi­dence is inad­e­quate to divert the word from its lit­er­al mean­ing, thus it is to be rejected.

If we apply this rule to the word ​“farj” in the verse, main­tain­ing its explic­it mean­ing is pri­or to inter­pret­ing it. More­over, evi­dence adds more weight to the explic­it mean­ing than to the inter­pre­ta­tion. This is dis­cussed in the fol­low­ing section.

Exe­ge­sis of ​“guard­ed her farj…” 

Here we are con­front­ed with two expla­na­tions : one claim­ing that the farj refers to the Jayb (i.e., the open­ing of her gar­ment) and that Mary pre­vent­ed Gabriel from approach­ing her Jayb accord­ing to the pre­vi­ous­ly quot­ed tra­di­tion, and the oth­er claim­ing that it refers to her pri­vate part and that the expres­sion ​“guard­ed her farj” is intend­ed to mean guard­ed her chasti­ty from lewd­ness. Before we dis­cuss the two expla­na­tions, the degree of verac­i­ty of each of them and which of them is the cor­rect one (since we know that they can­not be both right), we will dis­play the opin­ions of var­i­ous schol­ars and exegetes con­cern­ing the phrase.

Imam At-Tab?r ? states,

All?h Whose remem­brance is exalt­ed says ​“And Mary the daugh­ter of ?Imran, who guard­ed her farj” He means : who pro­tect­ed the open­ing of her gar­ment from Gabriel (peace be upon him); any open­ing or tear in the gar­ment is called farj, as well any crack in a wall, or a win­dow in a roof is a farj.[15]

Imam Al-Qurt?b ? says

“who guard­ed her farj” — from lewd­ness. Com­men­ta­tors say the faarj is intend­ed to mean the open­ing (of the gar­ment) because He says ​“We breathed into it of Our spir­it”; Gabriel (peace be upon him) breathed but into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) and did not breathe into her pri­vate part. In the recita­tion of Ubai ​“We breathed into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) of Our Spir­it”. Every open­ing in the dress is called farj like His say­ing ​“and there are no flaws (furooj, sing. farj) in it?” (Holy Qur’?n 50:6). It is prob­a­ble that she guard­ed her pri­vate part and he breathed into the open­ing of her (garment).[16]

Imam Ibn Kath?r says

“And Mary the daugh­ter of ?Imran, who guard­ed her farj” i.e., pro­tect­ed and puri­fied it ; guard­ing (ihsan) is chasti­ty and absence of immorality.[17]

As-Samarq?nd ? says

“who guard­ed her farj” means who puri­fied her­self from lewdness.

Al-Mawar­di states

“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” com­men­ta­tors state that the farj is intend­ed to mean the open­ing (of the gar­ment) for He says ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it”; and Gabriel breathed but into the open­ing of her (gar­ment).

Ar‑R?z ? states

“guard­ed” from lewd­ness because she was accused of adul­tery. The farj is under­stood lit­er­al­ly ; Ibn ?Abbas said Gabriel breathed into the open­ing of the gar­ment ; he extend­ed it with his fin­gers and breathed into it. Every open­ing, tear et cetera in the gar­ment is named farj.

Ibn-ul-Ja?z ? states that

His say­ing ​“guard­ed her farj” we have men­tioned two opin­ions in Surat-ul-Anbiyya?; those who say that it is the open­ing of her gar­ment state that the pro­noun in ​“breathed into it” refers to it (i.e., the Jayb) because Gabriel extend­ed the open­ing of the gar­ment and intro­duced it. And those who say that it is the birth out­let state that the pro­noun refers to a non-men­tioned object for he breathed into her gar­ment not her pri­vate part.

Ath-Tha’?lib ? states that

His say­ing ​“guard­ed her farj”, the major­i­ty say it is the open­ing of the gar­ment, and some say it is the pri­vate organ and ​“guard­ing it” means pro­tect­ing it.

Al-Al?s ? states that

Al-Farr ? says : ​“Exegetes men­tioned that the farj is the open­ing of her gar­ment and this is pos­si­ble because Al-Farj lin­guis­ti­cal­ly means every fis­sure between two objects and the place of open­ing of woman?s gar­ment is fis­sure-like, so it is a farj. This is more elo­quent in prais­ing her for if she guards the open­ing of her gar­ment, she is more sol­id in guard­ing herself”.

This quo­ta­tion of the famous Arab gram­mar­i­an Al-Farr?’ by Al-Al?si is extreme­ly valu­able because it shows that the tra­di­tion of Mary pre­vent­ing Gabriel from approach­ing her Jayb (i.e., the open­ing of her gar­ment) is not mere­ly lin­guis­ti­cal­ly applic­a­ble, but it is even more elo­quent for if she is praised for being sol­id in guard­ing her Jayb, then she must be much more sol­id in guard­ing her­self against lewd­ness. Con­se­quent­ly, this expla­na­tion encom­pass­es — and is supe­ri­or to — the oth­er one claim­ing that ​“guard­ed her farj” means ​“kept her­self pure”, but not vice-versa.

Ash-Sha?kan ? states,

“who guard­ed her farj” from lewd­ness, its exe­ge­sis has been men­tioned in Surat-un-Nisaa. Com­men­ta­tors state that the farj is intend­ed to mean the open­ing (of the gar­ment) for His say­ing ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it”; Gabriel breathed but into the open­ing of her gar­ment and she con­ceived Jesus.[18]

The Shi’ite schol­ar At-Tabar?s ? states that

“And Mary the daugh­ter of Imran, who guard­ed her farj” i.e., pro­tect­ed her pri­vate part from (indulging in) sin and puri­fied her­self from pro­hib­it­ed things. It is said, it means she pre­vent­ed her­self from hav­ing a husband.

After we have dis­played quo­ta­tions of var­i­ous schol­ars on the pas­sage, we are left with two expla­na­tions — either that the farj refers to the pri­vate part and the mean­ing is that Mary guard­ed her­self from lewd­ness, or that it refers to the open­ing of her gar­ment and the pas­sage is a ref­er­ence to the event of Mary pre­vent­ing Gabriel from approach­ing her Jayb. The two mean­ings are pos­si­ble, but — accord­ing to prin­ci­ples of Qur’?nic inter­pre­ta­tion — only one of them is the cor­rect one.

We say — and All?h knows best — that the sec­ond expla­na­tion is the cor­rect one for the fol­low­ing caus­es : first, it is the lit­er­al mean­ing and we have shown in the above sec­tion that the direct explic­it mean­ing is pri­or to the metaphor­ic one. Sec­ond­ly, it is sup­port­ed by Mus­lim tra­di­tion and this is the strongest evi­dence. Third­ly, it is more elo­quent and encom­pass­es the oth­er inter­pre­ta­tion but not vice-ver­sa. Fourth­ly, the pro­noun in the verse undoubt­ed­ly refers to Mary?s Jayb (i.e., the open­ing of her gar­ment) and it is pri­or of the pro­noun to refer to the object in the verse (i.e., the farj) rather than refer­ring to a non-men­tioned object.

So, we notice that all tra­di­tion­al, lin­guis­tic, rhetoric and log­i­cal aspects endorse the exe­ge­sis of the word farj as a ref­er­ence to the open­ing of Mary?s gar­ment. And All?h knows best.

Exe­ge­sis of ​“breathed into it…” 

All Mus­lim exegetes and com­men­ta­tors agree that Gabriel breathed but into the open­ing of Mary’s gar­ment, not into her vagi­na as Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies and polemi­cists fan­ta­size. This is the agreed-upon exe­ge­sis even if the unbe­liev­ers dis­like it. The Eng­lish trans­la­tion of the Noble Qur’?n done by Dr. Taq?-ud‑D?n Al-Hil?l?, Ph. D. & Dr. Muham­mad Muhsin Kh?n ren­ders the verse to

“…and We breathed into (the sleeve of her shirt or her gar­ment) through Our R?h [i.e. Jibrael (Gabriel)” (Qur’?n 66:12)

Imam Ibn Quta?bah (died 276 A.H.) states

The Mes­si­ah is Spir­it of God (Ruhul­lah) because he is the breath of Gabriel into the gar­ment of Mary.[19]

Ibn Jar?r At-Tab?r ? states,

“We breathed into it” ? into the open­ing of her garment.[20]

Al-Qurt?b ? states,

“We breathed into it of Our spir­it” ? Gabriel (peace be upon him) breathed but into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) and did not breathe into her pri­vate part. In the recita­tion of Ubai ​“We breathed into the open­ing of her (gar­ment) of Our Spirit”.[21]

Ibn Kath?r states

“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” ? by the Archangel Gabriel for God the Most High sent him to her, so he shaped in the form of a man. God the Most High com­mand­ed him to breathe with his mouth into the open­ing of her gar­ment, the breath then descend­ed and entered through her pri­vate part, and she con­ceived Jesus (peace be upon him).[22]

As-Samar­qan­di states

“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” ? means We sent (Angel) Gabriel (peace be upon him) so he breathed into the open­ing of her garment.

Al-Mawar­di states

…He says ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” and Gabriel breathed but into the open­ing of her (gar­ment).

Al-Bagh­wi states

“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” ? into the open­ing of her garment. 

Az-Zamakhshar ? in Al-Kashaf states (com­men­tary on 21:91),

? because he breathed into the open­ing of her gar­ment and the breath reached inside of her.[23]

An-Nasaf ? in Madarek-ut-Tanz?l states (com­men­tary on 21:91),

​“We breathed into her from Our spir­it” ? We put spir­it of the Mes­si­ah inside her or We sent Gabriel and he breathed in the open­ing of her gar­ment, so We pro­duced Jesus inside her with this breath.[24]

Ab ? Hayyan in Al-Bahr Al-Muh?t states (com­men­tary on 21:91),

Appar­ent­ly, His say­ing ​“We breathed into her from Our spir­it” is a metaphor to indi­cate cre­ation of Jesus alive inside her womb ; there is no actu­al breath­ing. He the Exalt­ed attrib­uted the spir­it to Him­self out of hon­our. It is said : there is actu­al breath­ing ; Gabriel did breathe into the open­ing of her gar­ment and the breath is attrib­uted to Him (glo­ry be to Him) out of hon­our for Gabriel did it accord­ing to His com­mand. It is said : the spir­it here is Gabriel as He says ​“We sent to her Our spir­it” (Holy Qur’?n 19:17) and the mean­ing of ​“We breathed into her” is through Gabriel. Gabriel had breathed into the open­ing of her gar­ment and the breath reached inside her.

This is the only excep­tion to the agree­ment of Mus­lim com­men­ta­tors. Ab ? Hayyan brings a valu­able con­sid­er­a­tion (that the entire phrase is but a metaphor), how­ev­er, he hon­est­ly gives men­tion of the ortho­dox interpretation.

Ar‑R?z ? states that

Ibn ?Abbas said Gabriel breathed into the open­ing of the gar­ment ; he extend­ed it with his fin­gers and breathed into it.

Ibn-ul-Ja?z ? says that

His say­ing ​“guard­ed her farj” we have men­tioned two opin­ions in Surat-ul-Anbiyya?; those who say that it is the open­ing of her gar­ment state that the pro­noun in ​“breathed into it” refers to it (i.e., the Jayb) because Gabriel extend­ed the open­ing of the gar­ment and intro­duced it. And those who say that it is the birth out­let state that the pro­noun refers to a non-men­tioned object for he breathed into her gar­ment not her pri­vate part.

Here Imam Ibn-ul-Ja?z ? state that the pro­noun refers to the Jayb (i.e., the open­ing of the gar­ment) no mat­ter what the mean­ing of farj is. If the farj refers to the Jayb, then the pro­noun refers to it, and if the farj refers to the pri­vate organ, then the pro­noun refers to a non-men­tioned object — which is a legit­i­mate approach in Ara­bic lan­guage — that is the Jayb because the tra­di­tion leaves no doubt that Gabriel had breathed into Mary’s Jayb.

Al-Galalan states that

“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” ? it is Gabriel when he breathed into the open­ing of her gar­ment what God the Exalt­ed had cre­at­ed, so it reached her pri­vate part and she con­ceived Jesus.[25]

Ash-Sha?kan ? also com­ments by saying

Com­men­ta­tors state that what is intend­ed by Al-Farj here is the open­ing (of the gar­ment) due to His say­ing ​“We breathed into it from Our spir­it”; Gabriel did breathe into the open­ing of her gar­ment, so she con­ceived Jesus.[26]

The Shi’ite Imam At-Tabar?s ? states

“We breathed into it from Our spir­it” ? Gabriel, with our com­mand, breathed into the open­ing of her gar­ment from Our spir­it. It is relat­ed on author­i­ty of Qatada.

So if the missionary?s objec­tion is all about the men­tion of breath­ing into Mary?s vagi­na in the Qur’?n, then his objec­tion is base­less for no sin­gle Mus­lim com­men­ta­tor ever claimed that the pro­noun in Qur’?n 66:12 refers to the vagi­na of Vir­gin Mary. But the con­tro­ver­sy here would be about how the breath had reached the womb of Mary ; Ab ? Hayyan, Az-Zamakhsh?r ? and An-Nasaf ? not­ed that it infil­trat­ed her body based upon their under­stand­ing of the verse in Sura al-Anbiyaa’, ​“We breathed into her”, while lat­er schol­ars like Ibn Kath?r and Al-Galalan stat­ed that the breath descend­ed and entered her womb through her pri­vate organ based upon their sup­po­si­tion that since the birth of Jesus(P) was vagi­nal, then his con­cep­tion must have been vagi­nal too. A sim­ple com­par­i­son will show that the opin­ion of Ab ? Hayyan, Az-Zamakhsh?r ? and An-Nasaf ? is more accept­able and acquires legit­i­ma­cy from the Qur’?n, while that of Ibn Kath?r and Al-Galalan is no more than a sup­po­si­tion with­out evi­dence in the Qur’?n or tra­di­tion. And All?h knows best.

Lan­guage of the Bible as a Whole

Now let us move on the the lan­guage of the Bible and demon­strate how cer­tain pas­sages from it can only be deemed as any­thing but ​“decent”. It has been recog­nised in the past that the Bible con­tained lan­guage that are obscene and are graph­i­cal­ly sex­u­al in its mate­r­i­al, or as what a not­ed con­tem­po­rary the­olo­gian said,

…the Bible con­tains much racy mate­r­i­al, ful­ly as sexy as the works of Jacque­line Susann, only bet­ter written.[27]

Now let us cite a few pas­sages from the Bible to demon­strate the ​“racy mate­r­i­al” that is con­tained with­in it. It should be not­ed that this is a incom­plete col­lec­tion of excerpts from objec­tion­able Bib­li­cal lan­guage, and is there­fore not exhau­sive. This is done in order to keep this arti­cle with­in the lim­its of PG-13 rat­ing. Fur­ther objec­tions to the Bib­li­cal mate­r­i­al can be not­ed in our Appen­dix.

Gen­e­sis 34:2
And when Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the coun­try, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Num­bers 25:1
And Israel abode in Shit­tim, and the peo­ple began to com­mit whore­dom with the daugh­ters of Moab.

Mic­ah 1:8>
There­fore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked : I will make a wail­ing like the drag­ons, and mourn­ing as the owls.

Ezekiel 16:7 – 8
I have caused thee to mul­ti­ply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and wax­en great, and thou art come to excel­lent orna­ments : thy breasts are fash­ioned, and thine hair is grown, where­as thou wast naked and bare. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love ; and I spread my skirt over thee, and cov­ered thy naked­ness : yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

Ezekiel 23:16 – 20
And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she dot­ed upon them, and sent mes­sen­gers unto them into Chaldea. And the Baby­lo­ni­ans came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whore­dom, and she was pol­lut­ed with them, and her mind was alien­at­ed from them So she dis­cov­ered her whore­doms, and dis­cov­ered her naked­ness : then my mind was alien­at­ed from her, like as my mind was alien­at­ed from her sis­ter. Yet she mul­ti­plied her whore­doms, in call­ing to remem­brance the days of her youth, where­in she had played the har­lot in the land of Egypt.For she dot­ed upon their Para­mours, whose flesh is as the flesh of ass­es, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Proverbs 5:18 – 19 
Let thy foun­tain be blessed : and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the lov­ing hind and pleas­ant roe ; let her breasts sat­is­fy thee at all times ; and be thou rav­ished always with her love.

Proverbs 7:18
Come, let’s drink deep of love till morn­ing ; let’s enjoy our­selves with love !

More exam­ples can be not­ed here.

It is per­haps not too far-fetched to say that we are now able to pin­point the source of the mis­sion­ary’s rauchy inter­pre­ta­tions of the Qur’?n, hav­ing seen the inde­cent expo­sures from excerpts of the Bib­li­cal text. One can only con­clude that the Bible lan­guage in gen­er­al is shame­ful and dis­gust­ing, to say the least.

Con­clu­sions

We have shown that the inter­pre­ta­tion of Qur’?n 66:12 clear­ly affirms that Mary, the moth­er of Christ Jesus(P), was a chaste woman who had nev­er been touched by any man. The word farj, which the mis­sion­ary claims to be allud­ing to Mary’s gen­i­tals, is actu­al­ly refer­ring to the opening/​fissure of Mary’s gar­ment, and the com­men­ta­tors of the Qur’?n had under­stood this to mean that the Angel Gabriel had breathed into an open­ing of Mary?s gar­ment to ush­er in the con­cep­tion of Jesus (P).

It is also clear that the Qur’?nic text is noth­ing like the vivid, obscene imagery that is con­tained with­in the Bible. Hav­ing shown exam­ples of the ​“racy mate­r­i­al” that is con­tained with­in the mis­sion­ary’s ​“Word of God”, it is clear that the lan­guage of parts of the Bible is lit­tle left to be desired. It might be pru­dent for the mis­sion­ary to bear in mind that throw­ing stones at glass hous­es would only get one­self hurt in the process.

And only God knows best !

Ref­er­ences

[1] Rahmatull?h al-Kiranw?, Izhar-ul‑H?q, Vol. 1, p. 85

[2] At-Tab?r?, Jami’-ul-Bayan, Vol. 28, p. 192

[3] Al-Qurt?b?, Al-Gami’ le Ahk?m‑el-Qur’?n, Vol. 28, pp. 203 – 204

[4] Ibn Kath?r, Tafs?r‑ul-Qur’?n Al-‘Az?m, Vol. 8, p. 92

[5] Al-Mahal­li and As-Suy?t?, Tafs?r‑ul-Galal?n, p. 543

[6] Ash-Sha?kan?, Fath-ul-Qad?r, Vol. 5, p. 340

[7] As quot­ed by Al-Qurt?b?, Al-Gami’ le Ahk?m‑el-Qur’?n, Vol. 17, p. 304

[8] Al-Mu’j?m‑ul-Waj?z, p. 465

[9] cf. Qur’?n 5:23, 29:70, 30:24, 31:24 and 35:33

[10] cf. Qur’?n 31:24

[11] Sunan-ut-Tirmith ?, n. 2105, Musn?d Ahm?d, n. 3916 and 4027 and Sunan-ul-Ba?haqi, n. 21314 and 21670

[12] Yus?f Al-Qar?d?w?, Kaif Nata?amal Ma?a Al-Qur’?n Al-‘Az?m ? (How to Deal with the Glo­ri­ous Qur’?n?), p. 284

[13] Ibid., p. 185

[14] Ash-Sha?kan?, Irshad-ul-Fuh?l, p. 176

[15] At-Tab?r?, Jami?-ul-Bayan, Vol. 28, p. 192

[16] Al-Qurt?b?, Al-Gami ? le Ahk?m‑el-Qur’?n, Vol. 28, pp. 203 – 204

[17] Ibn Kath?r, Tafs?r‑ul-Qur’?n Al-‘Az?m, Vol. 8, p. 92

[18] Ash-Sha?kan?, Fath-ul-Qad?r, Vol. 5, p. 340

[19] Ibn Quta?bah, Ta’wil Mushk­il Al-Qur’?n, p. 487

[20] At-Tab?r?, op. cit.

[21] Al-Qurt?b?, op. cit.

[22] Ibn Kath?r, op. cit.

[23] Az-Zamakhshari, Tafs?r‑ul-Kashaf, Vol. 3, p. 204

[24] An-Nasaf?, Madarek-ut-Tanz?l, Vol. 2, p. 99

[25] Al-Mahall ? and As-Suy?t?, Op. Cit.

[26] Ash-Sha?kan?, Op. Cit.

[27] As quot­ed from Rev. Charles Mer­rill Smith in Ben Edward Aker­ley, The X‑Rated Bible (Omar Broth­ers Pub­li­ca­tion, 1994), p. xv