I have often asked one question and never received a satisfactory answer to this question.  Why the absense of Joseph is the Quran?  I have noted the absense of many of the Prophets' wives in the Quran, names like Hannah, Elizabeth and Rachael/Leah.  The Quran focuses on the actual prophets and less about their families, so I ask, why is there such a push to deny the existence of Joseph, Son of David?  The bible gives Jesus a family.....this does not necessarily contradict the account given is Surah Maryam.

The Birth of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:18-25) 

 18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,^[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

 22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"^[d]�which means, "God with us."

 24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Salaam

Angela there is no evidence in the Qur'an nor in the Hadith references of the mentioning of Joseph the legal guardian of Jesus. Since there are no point of reference most Muslims would only rely on the historical account of the Bible.

AnnieTwo wrote: Good question Angela. What happened to Joseph in the Qur'an?  We do know that God provided for Jesus.  He made sure that he had a normal childhood with a mother and a father. Why does the Qur'an exclude Joseph? Annie

Greetings Anniel

Silence on a topic does not imply the intentional exclusion. The Quran is not a narrative in the classical sense. It is a dialogue between Gd and man.

The topic simply had no need to come up.

Angela wrote: So, then why deny his existence?  If there is a record, even if that record has some flaws, why deny his existence?  When the gospels were written in the 60-150 years after the death, they would have been closer in time to understand the people involved.  The Quran has many "omissions" that were unnecessary to the Message.  The names of the wife of Israel (Jacob), Samuel's mother and such had already been recorded.  So, why the need to single out Joseph as a fictional character when this is not done in the cases of Hannah or Racheal?

Greetings Angela.

Silence does not imply denial. The topic was unimportant. Keep in mind that the Quran is not a "narrative" that gives a chronological historical account of who had babies with who and what some man may or may not have done unless the event had some wisdom relevant to setting of the revelation. 

The Quran is a dialogue between Gd and His creation, which is what sets it apart from the bible.  

Furthermore, the time period which the Quran was revealed is unimportant to any event it speaks of, because we are not talking about a man made historical account, but a revelation from Gd. Not inspired, but a direct dialogue.

Peace

DavidC wrote: The Qu'ran is a pretty short book.  I never read it as excluding Joseph, just that the story of Joseph wsa not essential to the message. It's hard to find much relevant about Joseph even in the NT.  He confirms Jesus' lineage and is a good role model, but that's about it.

Greetings David. I think yo ucleared it up better than I ever could.

Seems like you are more "logical" than you like to admit.

I agree with David, who said it best.

In Qur'aan, God Almighty even does not mention the name of Mary's own father but talks fondly about Mary's mother who gave her own child in the service of God. And God gave Mary under the care of Zeccharius. Hence he is mentioned as the Guardian of Mary. He was there when Mary had the child.

In Verse 163-165 Surah 4 Al-Nisa, God Almighty tells Muhammad,"We revealed to you like We revealed to Noah and prophets after him, and revealed to Abraham, Ishmael and Issac, and Jacob and the Tribes and Ayub (Job), Yunus (Jonah) and Aaron and Solomon and gave David the Psalms. And We told you about prophets before you and We did not tell you about others and Allah spoke directly to Moses. The Prophets delivering good news and warnings so that people had no excuse of disputing about Allah after the prophets."

Thus Allah in Qur'aan talks about only the messengers/prophets and only persons who have relevance to God's messages.

Even the names of Muhammad's own father and mother are not mentioned in Qur'aan. As for ladies, the only lady who has been mentioned in Qur'aan IS Mary-am. Muhammad's own name has been mentioned ONLY four times in Qur'aan revealed over  a period of twenty-three years! That was an average of once in six years only.

If God had spoken about everyone, the book would have run into twenty thousand pages or may be more.

And to Muhammad, in Surah 11, V120 Hud,"And We have narrated to you the stories of messengers so that your heart is strengthened knowing that this truth has come to you and this is a reminder  to the believers."

Then in Surah 12 Yusuf, V 3,"We have narrated the best of the most beautiful stories via revelation to you, through this Qur'aan, and before this you were not aware of these."

Thus only stories to the point and important messengers/prophets are mentioned to convey the message of God. Joseph was not included because he was neither a prophet nor a messenger.

019.023
YUSUFALI: And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"

It is true that women are in pain in childbirth, but I find it hard to believe that since God announced that she would have a special child she would have wanted to die rather than give birth.  In the Biblical story Joseph is with her and caring for her.  Joseph is needed in this story.

019.024-026 tells about Mary and the Palm tree.

019.027
YUSUFALI: At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

This is an odd reaction.  She goes away and comes back with a baby and they say, "truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!"  Under the circumstances a Jewish, unmarried woman giving birth to a child would be a disgrace to herself and to her family.  Not so if Joseph had been with her.  Joseph is needed in the story.

019.028
YUSUFALI: "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

This verse probably means that since she came from a good family she would not be likely to have a baby out of wedlock.  In the Biblical story Mary and Joseph get married, have other children and bring up Jesus.  Remember Joseph and Mary were together when Jesus was 12, signifying a normal family life.

019.029
YUSUFALI: But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

Looks like Mary is asking her family to ask Jesus what happened.  This would be a good place for Joseph to be mentioned.  In the Biblical story Joseph and Mary could tell of the angel's visit and why Mary gave birth.

019.030
YUSUFALI: He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

Now it is Jesus who speaks up for his mother as a baby.

This story is very odd.  I don't think that Joseph isn't mentioned is because he wasn't a prophet or a person of importance to the story.  As mentioned Mary's mother is mentioned and she wasn't a prophet.

Annie,

Is there something wrong with your browser that when you post you get all these <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> stuck all through....

You can preview your post and/or go back and edit these out when making a post. 

I know your new, its making it hard to read.

AnnieTwo wrote: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Here is the story in the Qur'an and my observations. <!--[endif]--> 019.016 YUSUFALI:<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. <!--[endif]--> No mention of a betrothal <>to Joseph.  Her withdrawal from her family no doubt means from her mother and father.  The Biblical story is that Mary and Joseph were betrothed and an angel came to both of them about the coming birth of Jesus.  Joseph is needed in the story.

Supposition.

Your assertion begs the question: Why is Joseph needed?

Annie2 wrote: 019.017 YUSUFALI:<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. <!--[endif]--> 019.018 YUSUFALI:<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah." <!--[endif]--> <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 0019.019-21 tells of the story of Mary's conception. <!--[endif]-->019.022 YUSUFALI:<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. No mention that God provided for her with a husband Joseph, yet the Qur'an says that God provided for Mary's mother.  Mary goes to a "remote" place?  Joseph is needed in this story.

And again you beg the question: Why is Jospeh needed in the story? I hope you share your discovery with me so that I will be aware of a theological delima in the Quran?

Annie2 wrote: <!--[endif]--> 019.023 YUSUFALI: And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" It is true that women are in pain in childbirth, but I find it hard to believe that since God announced that she would have a special child she would have wanted to die rather than give birth.  In the Biblical story Joseph is with her and caring for her.  Joseph is needed in this story. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

It should be painfully obvious, even for the most adamant detractor, that this is not an admission or literal decleration  from Mary that she wanted to end her life. The is on "obvious" evidence when one keeps the context in mind of what is going on.

And onece again, you commited the a familiar fallacy as you beg the question, Why is Joseph needed.

Annie2 wrote:   019.024-026 tells about Mary and the Palm tree. 019.027 YUSUFALI: At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! This is an odd reaction.  She goes away and comes back with a baby and they say, "truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!"  Under the circumstances a Jewish, unmarried woman giving birth to a child would be a disgrace to herself and to her family.  Not so if Joseph had been with her.  Joseph is needed in the story.

This is a problem that plagues 99.9% of gentiles who have come to rely completely, and totally, on translations, and even go as far as to derive deep ununderstanding from translations. Yusuf Ali gave a translation, and you are attempting to derive a meaning from using his translation, which is a general representation of the Quran. The words "amazing thing" are used to render an arabic word, fari, which does not literally translate into "amazing thing", and looking at the expression of the people who she was interacting with should be a painfully obvious clue, even for the most adamant detractor. She is chastised and reminded of how she is from noble, piousse bloodline, this sets up the interaction between them and baby Jesus, who defends his mother. 

And once again, you "begged the question", how is Joseph needed?

Annie2 wrote: 019.028 YUSUFALI: "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" This verse probably means that since she came from a good family she would not be likely to have a baby out of wedlock.  In the Biblical story Mary and Joseph get married, have other children and bring up Jesus.  Remember Joseph and Mary were together when Jesus was 12, signifying a normal family life.

This verse should have clued you in to the use of the expression "amazing thing", as now you have people angry with her. Given that you NT is unreliable, one cannot accept what it says as fact. I have presented two strong points that discredit any historical validity of your NT. I look forward to your comments on them.

Annie2 wrote: 019.029 YUSUFALI: But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" Looks like Mary is asking her family to ask Jesus what happened.  This would be a good place for Joseph to be mentioned.  In the Biblical story Joseph and Mary could tell of the angel's visit and why Mary gave birth.

This is your opinion, which does not count as fact or as ana rgument as to why this is a good place for Joseph. In fact, this verse works against you.

1) Ask Joseph: "Well guys, you see.err..it goes like this, Gd got my wife pregnant and she was really a virgin". Possible reply: Gee Joseph, this must be the Meesiah Gd that everyone is talking about in the million and one prophecy fulfillment claims. Lets all worship him.

2) Ask Jesus: "Verily I am the servant of Gd. He has given me the book and made me a prophet......."

A baby talking. It is not too difficult to believe in the miraculous nature of the birth itself, and it is not too difficult to believe that Jesus is someone very special, and now it is not too diificult to believe he is a prophet.

Annie2 wrote: 019.030 YUSUFALI: He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; Now it is Jesus who speaks up for his mother as a baby.

Yes, versus a man who would have no evidence but his word. The bottom line: Jesus would be the most rational choice to provide a defense to his mother. Unlike the Gospel account where Gd has to be taken away to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Gd.

Annie2 wrote: This story is very odd.  I don't think that Joseph isn't mentioned is because he wasn't a prophet or a person of importance to the story.  As mentioned Mary's mother is mentioned and she wasn't a prophet. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->I can think of some possibilities why he wasn't included in the story. Annie

We do not know, One reason could be is that they did not marry, and the Gospel authors were simply trying to make the virgin birth of Jesus a more legitimate in the eyes of Torah observant Jews. "If Mary really were not a virgin, Joseph would not have married her". This is a common plea by Christians to argue the virgin birth.

Another possibilty is that Joseph married her later. It could be a number of things. The bottom line is that Gd did not think it relevant to metion anything about him.

Supposition.

According to Jewish law when a man and woman are betrothed, they are legally married and she stays with her family until she leaves them and joins her husband in their house. Joseph is needed because there was no need for Mary to withdraw from her family.

No mention that God provided for her with a husband Joseph, yet the Qur'an says that God provided for Mary's mother.  Mary goes to a "remote" place?  Joseph is needed in this story.

And again you beg the question: Why is Jospeh needed in the story? I hope you share your discovery with me so that I will be aware of a theological delima in the Quran?

Joseph is needed because God provided Mary with a husband to take care of her and her baby.

It should be painfully obvious, even for the most adamant detractor, that this is not an admission or literal decleration  from Mary that she wanted to end her life. The is on "obvious" evidence when one keeps the context in mind of what is going on.

And onece again, you commited the a familiar fallacy as you beg the question, Why is Joseph needed.

It is painfully obvious from this verse what Mary said and why.

This is an odd reaction.  She goes away and comes back with a baby and they say, "truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!"  Under the circumstances a Jewish, unmarried woman giving birth to a child would be a disgrace to herself and to her family.  Not so if Joseph had been with her.  Joseph is needed in the story.

This is a problem that plagues 99.9% of gentiles who have come to rely completely, and totally, on translations, and even go as far as to derive deep ununderstanding from translations. Yusuf Ali gave a translation, and you are attempting to derive a meaning from using his translation, which is a general representation of the Quran. The words "amazing thing" are used to render an arabic word, fari, which does not literally translate into "amazing thing", and looking at the expression of the people who she was interacting with should be a painfully obvious clue, even for the most adamant detractor. She is chastised and reminded of how she is from noble, piousse bloodline, this sets up the interaction between them and baby Jesus, who defends his mother. 

And once again, you "begged the question", how is Joseph needed?

PICKTHAL: Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing.

SHAKIR: And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Marium! surely you have done a strange thing.

This is your opinion, which does not count as fact or as ana rgument as to why this is a good place for Joseph. In fact, this verse works against you.

As mentioned before both Mary and Joseph knew why Mary was pregnant.  They both could have explained.  There would be no need for a baby to talk and try and explain.

1) Ask Joseph: "Well guys, you see.err..it goes like this, Gd got my wife pregnant and she was really a virgin". Possible reply: Gee Joseph, this must be the Meesiah Gd that everyone is talking about in the million and one prophecy fulfillment claims. Lets all worship him.

Your response is not nice�God got Mary pregnant and is uncalled for.  They could have used the expression in the Qur'an, "God said "be" and it was.

Since Muslims believe that all of Jesus' miracles were made possible by the leave of God, then it was God who made Jesus speak as an infant.  There would have been no need if Mary and Joseph had explained what happened.

Now it is Jesus who speaks up for his mother as a baby.

Yes, versus a man who would have no evidence but his word. The bottom line: Jesus would be the most rational choice to provide a defense to his mother. Unlike the Gospel account where Gd has to be taken away to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Gd.

We have Mary and Joseph's account.  No need for Jesus' testimony.  There is no evidence that Jesus spoke as an infant.  Something like that would be a sensational event that would be hard to hide, yet there is nothing outside of a late written book on folklore.

We do not know, One reason could be is that they did not marry, and the Gospel authors were simply trying to make the virgin birth of Jesus a more legitimate in the eyes of Torah observant Jews. "If Mary really were not a virgin, Joseph would not have married her". This is a common plea by Christians to argue the virgin birth.

Another possibilty is that Joseph married her later. It could be a number of things. The bottom line is that Gd did not think it relevant to metion anything about him.

I don't think so.

AnnieTwo wrote: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Andalus, <!--[endif]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->No mention of a betrothal to Joseph.  Her withdrawal from her family no doubt means from her mother and father.  The Biblical story is that Mary and Joseph were betrothed and an angel came to both of them about the coming birth of Jesus.  Joseph is needed in the story. <!--[endif]--> Supposition. <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Your assertion begs the question: Why is Joseph needed? <!--[endif]--> According to Jewish law when a man and woman are betrothed, they are legally married and she stays with her family until she leaves them and joins her husband in their house. Joseph is needed because there was no need for Mary to withdraw from her family.

Greetings Annie. You might want to check yoruself out on the basic use of the editor here, as your "format" is making it extremely difficult to reply and time consuming

Now, one to the topic.

I notice you have began to "obfuscate" the thread. I asked you t to explain why Joseph was needed in the situation where Mary "withdrew from her family". You stated the notion of betrothal. This does not answer the question you begged: WHy is Joseph needed.

1) A woman is free to travel and does not require a betrothal.

2) Your quote of a Semitic custom is a " Non sequitur " is a logical fallacy that means, "does not follow". Whether or not a woman is betrothed has not outcome on whether or not she can withdraw from her fmaily.

Your last statement was extremely odd. You stated, "Joseph is needed because there was no need for Mary to withdraw from her family."  Given this statement is not even grammatically correct, one cannot be expected to derive a rational meaning. Please clarify.

The point was, your statement that the Quranic account of Mary is inaccurate because Joseoh was needed. I asked you to explain why Jospeh is needed. You simply regurgitated a Jewish practice which delves in the fallacy of a "non-sequitor". We are no closer to understanding the raitonal behind your objection.

Annie2 wrote: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> No mention that God provided for her with a husband Joseph, yet the Qur'an says that God provided for Mary's mother.  Mary goes to a "remote" place?  Joseph is needed in this story. And again you beg the question: Why is Jospeh needed in the story? I hope you share your discovery with me so that I will be aware of a theological delima in the Quran? Joseph is needed because God provided Mary with a husband to take care of her and her baby.

This is your opinion, not an argument. Your reasoning implies that Gd cannot take care of Mary and therefore must have created Joseph to make up for something Gd could not do?

Gd provides more than any human could. Your opion rests on the idea that Gd cannot take care of Mary. Irrational.

Annie2 wrote: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->It is true that women are in pain in childbirth, but I find it hard to believe that since God announced that she would have a special child she would have wanted to die rather than give birth.  In the Biblical story Joseph is with her and caring for her.  Joseph is needed in this story. <!--[endif]--> It should be painfully obvious, even for the most adamant detractor, that this is not an admission or literal decleration  from Mary that she wanted to end her life. The is on "obvious" evidence when one keeps the context in mind of what is going on. And onece again, you commited the a familiar fallacy as you beg the question, Why is Joseph needed. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> It is painfully obvious from this verse what Mary said and why. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

You are asserting again (an assertion is a statement that has not been claimed as true but not been shown tobe true).  William of Occam once devised a principle to determine the best choice for an explanation. It says that plurality should not be posited without necessity. In other words, then best explanation is the easiest one. 

Mary is suffering the pains of labor, along with the other pressures that face her, including having to face possible talk about her preganacy.

She makes a statement with regards to wishing she had been dead and forgotten.

Mary is suicidal, or Mary is a human under a great deal of pain and pressure and makes a statement under the influence of this which carries no reality at any other time.

According to your faith, Gd then is suicidal as He became a man in order to die.

The bottom line is that you are taking a juvenile approach to this verse as a way to find fault. No one but missionaries and the more serious detractors would try and find fault with this verse. This verse does not imply sucidal tendencies, it only seems as such to those who wish to find fault. There is another important idea called the principle of charity. It is an important concept even in the realm of textual interpretation. The principle tells us that we should render an interpretation in such a way that best fits common sense. In other words, common sense should explain the verse, but common sense is not so common.

Annie2 wrote:   This is an odd reaction.  She goes away and comes back with a baby and they say, "truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!"  Under the circumstances a Jewish, unmarried woman giving birth to a child would be a disgrace to herself and to her family.  Not so if Joseph had been with her.  Joseph is needed in the story. This is a problem that plagues 99.9% of gentiles who have come to rely completely, and totally, on translations, and even go as far as to derive deep ununderstanding from translations. Yusuf Ali gave a translation, and you are attempting to derive a meaning from using his translation, which is a general representation of the Quran. The words "amazing thing" are used to render an arabic word, fari, which does not literally translate into "amazing thing", and looking at the expression of the people who she was interacting with should be a painfully obvious clue, even for the most adamant detractor. She is chastised and reminded of how she is from noble, piousse bloodline, this sets up the interaction between them and baby Jesus, who defends his mother.  And once again, you "begged the question", how is Joseph needed? PICKTHAL: Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. SHAKIR: And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Marium! surely you have done a strange thing.

Notice that fari has been rendered very differently between the two translations you posted. The lines that follow the word should do well to define the context of the verse even for those who have trouble analyzing.

Annie2 wrote: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->I think my observation/interpretation was the correct one.  Joseph is needed in order to explain Mary giving birth to a child out of wedlock.  Since God provided a husband for Mary there would have been no need for this conversation to have taken place.  There would be no need for the baby to defend his mother.

This is not about yoru interpretaiton or observation, it is about the conclusion you drew.

1) You said Joseph was needed. This is entirely false given that the text tells us that Jesus explained himself.

2) Your assertion that Joseph was needed is based upon your own desire to superimpose the Christian account as a fact into this dsicussion. Joseph was needed for the Christian account, but not essential. IN other words, the story in the Christian account could have occcured with out Joseph ever being born. Gd did not need Joseph.

3) The verse does not require Joseph. You may not like the verse in the Quran, but yoru personal dislikes do not qualify as a "factual" problem in the Quran. Joseph was not needed, nor does Gd need him. 

Annie wrote: <!--[endif]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->This verse probably means that since she came from a good family she would not be likely to have a baby out of wedlock.  In the Biblical story Mary and Joseph get married, have other children and bring up Jesus.  Remember Joseph and Mary were together when Jesus was 12, signifying a normal family life. <!--[endif]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->This verse should have clued you in to the use of the expression "amazing thing", as now you have people angry with her. Given that you NT is unreliable, one cannot accept what it says as fact. I have presented two strong points that discredit any historical validity of your NT. I look forward to your comments on them. <!--[endif]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Is that your rebuttal?  The NT is unreliable?  That is your opinion.  The Qur'an doesn't seem to agree with your assessment.  Remember in the Qur'an Muslims are encouraged to ask a Christian when they are confused or in doubt.  You must remember that one.  I could make the same claim for the Qur'an.  I could say it is unreliable.  The Qur'an does not say that the Gospels are unreliable, lost or corrupted. <!--[endif]-->

No, I did not provide a rebuttal as there was not argument presented. I simply made a comment, and no, that was not based upon the unreliability of the NT. You seem to have skipped over the part where I stated, "This verse should have clued you in to the use of the expression "amazing thing", as now you have people angry with her." Then, because you are trying to superimpose your understanding of the Christian account of Mary, I reminded you that you cannot simply assert the Christian narrative as factual such that you may use its points to "discredit" the Quranic account.

This is what you are doing: The NT says "such and such" thing, which also suggests Joseph played some role, and you belive this role was essential to the story of Jesus, therefore, the Quran must use this idea also, because, (as you keep repeating but fail to demonstrate why), as you say, "Joseph was needed".  

Your statement that the Quran does not say that the NT is corrupt is irrelevant, given that the Quran is not a book on the textual criticism of the bible. The Torah does not say that the laws given to Noah are wrong either, but Jews no longer follow the laws of Noah. Strange isn't it.

Annie2 wrote:  <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Looks like Mary is asking her family to ask Jesus what happened.  This would be a good place for Joseph to be mentioned.  In the Biblical story Joseph and Mary could tell of the angel's visit and why Mary gave birth. <!--[endif]--> This is your opinion, which does not count as fact or as ana rgument as to why this is a good place for Joseph. In fact, this verse works against you. As mentioned before both Mary and Joseph knew why Mary was pregnant.  They both could have explained.  There would be no need for a baby to talk and try and explain.

Speculation, conjecture, and suppositional nonsense (like your opinion, does not count as anything factual). Joseph was not needed in the Quranic account because Jesus played the role of defending Mary. This event brings the entire account together in a consistant, and smooth fashion. There is not intrigue of the King of the land trying to send hit men out to kill Gd as Gd runs to Egypt to hide out. The Quranic account is extremely cohesive and coherent. 

To say that if Joseph was there would not give a reason for Jesus to talk is like saying if Gd in your NT would have just forgiven everyone, He owuld not have to have birthed Himself through a vagina and die. 

The point is, The Quranic account did not need Joseph or require him. To give a speculative "what if" is a waste of time.

Annie2 wrote:    1) Ask Joseph: "Well guys, you see.err..it goes like this, Gd got my wife pregnant and she was really a virgin". Possible reply: Gee Joseph, this must be the Meesiah Gd that everyone is talking about in the million and one prophecy fulfillment claims. Lets all worship him. Your response is not nice�God got Mary pregnant and is uncalled for.  They could have used the expression in the Qur'an, "God said "be" and it was.

Irrelevant. We are talking about what your account was in the NT, and what Joseph would have said about the birth. What I find interesting is that you have given a potential explanation from Joseph that is nearly as sound as that which baby Jesus gave. The only difference is that in the Quranic account, the baby gave the speech directly from his own lips, cutting out any need for a "mid manager". That is much more raitonal than Joseph having to tell everyone that the Gd of Israel is the father.

Annie2 wrote:    <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->2) Ask Jesus: "Verily I am the servant of Gd. He has given me the book and made me a prophet......." <!--[endif]--> <><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->A baby talking. It is not too difficult to believe in the miraculous nature of the birth itself, and it is not too difficult to believe that Jesus is someone very special, and now it is not too diificult to believe he is a prophet. <!--[endif]--> <>Jesus was<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> a prophet.  His first words in a late book of folklore were:  "Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee, and my father hath sent me for the salvation of the world."  The same book says that Jesus made clay birds fly.  The book was written as an imagination of what the miracle making Jesus would have been like as a child. <!--[endif]-->

Thats called a "red herring". (please look up the term). You are suggesting copying in the Quran which is not part of the thread. Please stick to the topic of the thread. I would be happy to discuss this charge from you on a nother thread. For now, I am wondering why you ignored my reply and decided to deflect with a red herring?

Please stick to the thread. Thanks.

 

Annie2 wrote:   Since Muslims believe that all of Jesus' miracles were made possible by the leave of God, then it was God who made Jesus speak as an infant.  There would have been no need if Mary and Joseph had explained what happened.

More conjecture, supposition, and "what ifs". The fact is, we are lookig at the Quranic account, and we are trying to figure out why ther is a problem in the Quranic account. Now you are saying that you feel Joseph could have given a better explanation, prvetning Jesus from speaking.

:lol: How do you know? Do you always input conjecutre and faciful thinking as fact?  

I just asked you to consider the response of Jesus, and you chose to reply with a completely irrelevant "red herring". Now you are asserting your absurd conjecture as fact again.

The fact is, just vecause Jospeh were present, does not mean there would not have been a need for Jesus to speak. I beg you to take a refresher in basic logic Anie, opinion does not count as fact.

The fact is, the Quran says Jesus did speak, and fact is, there is nothing wrong with the passage contextually or  internally and it meshes with the rest of the account. You cannot simply assert your opinion and then assert the Quran has a need for Joseph. Simply sophomoric.

Annie2 wrote:   <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> Now it is Jesus who speaks up for his mother as a baby. Yes, versus a man who would have no evidence but his word. The bottom line: Jesus would be the most rational choice to provide a defense to his mother. Unlike the Gospel account where Gd has to be taken away to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Gd. We have Mary and Joseph's account.  No need for Jesus' testimony.  There is no evidence that Jesus spoke as an infant.  Something like that would be a sensational event that would be hard to hide, yet there is nothing outside of a late written book on folklore.

You are asserting your opinion into the picture as fact. Only the more convinced Christians accept the NT account of Joseph and Mary as factual and historical. You made the claim that the Quranic account was in need of Joseph. You have so far only shown that you "believe this as true because thats how you feel", the fact is, you have not shown that the account in the Quran has any problems. It is irrelevant if you like the account or not, what is relevant, is your ability to show where the problem in the account rests.

There is no evidence that Jospeh was with Mary. So if you want a historical document to make yoru faith, then you are in a lot of trouble. This is called the fallacy of "special pleading".

You think that Jesus speaking as an infant is so difficult to imagine, yet you believe that Gd came into the earth through a vagina, and then used the bathroom, ate, smelled, went through puberty, all so He could die, such that He could be a perfect sacrifice for Himself so that He could forgive mankind of sins. You believe this, and you believe that Zombies walked through Jerusalem, and that Mary was a virgin, yet how extremely funny that you find it hard to imagine that an infant Jesus could talk. Sensaitonal indeed!

As far as a book on folklore, I am nore privy to a book on folklore about a talking baby Jesus. Please start a new thread with this latest development.

Annie2 wrote: We do not know, One reason could be is that they did not marry, and the Gospel authors were simply trying to make the virgin birth of Jesus a more legitimate in the eyes of Torah observant Jews. "If Mary really were not a virgin, Joseph would not have married her". This is a common plea by Christians to argue the virgin birth. Another possibilty is that Joseph married her later. It could be a number of things. The bottom line is that Gd did not think it relevant to metion anything about him. I don't think so. Annie

Your thoughts do not count as fact.

By the way, are you going to get to my point on the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy fulfillment claim any time soon?

Thanks

Peace

-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

Annie,

From you: "I think that God provided both a mother and a father for Jesus.  He made sure that Jesus was taken care of and grew up in a normal family.  I don't believe the story in the Qur'an."

I know that you don't believe the story in Qur'aan but it is a story best told in Qur'aan.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive stories.  As with the initial statements, the Quran leaves out a number of spouses.  Just because the Quran does not detail Joseph's role, does not mean he was not present.  The Slaughter of the Innocents by Herod, the Escape to Egypt, non of these really contradict the Bible, nor does the Bible contradict the Quran on these points.  They exclude other information that contradict each other, such as...

From the Quran, missing in the Bible:

1. Jesus spoke from the cradle.

2. Jesus declared himself a Prophet.

3. Jesus was given the mantle of Prophet while still in the womb.

From the Bible, missing in the Quran:

1. Angels announce the Birth to Sheppards.

2. The Magi following the Star.

3. The declaration by Gabriel that Jesus is the Son of God

4. The Annunciation to Joseph

 

No, Joseph not being in the Quran doesn't mean he didn't exist.  However, without Joseph in the Bible, the second important Annuciation would not be recorded.

Those things I listed here are important to the different teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ the Messiah.  Was he the Son of God or Not? (Not for this thread, so don't respond to the rhetorical question0

But, Joseph, IN MY OPINION, most certainly existed.  God provides for his prophets, he provides for the special women.  The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) took in several widows, so that they would be cared for by a righteous man.  Would Allah have denied Maryam the same rights and protections?  No, of course not.  So she must have been cared for by someone until her miraculous son came of age?  Obviously, Joseph died before Jesus started his ministry. This is evident in the Bible when Jesus asks John to care for his mother. 

I feel the denial of Joseph is an arguement without real credible evidence.  Its not as important to the diety of Jesus as one might believe, yet its very important to Mary.

Annie,

From you: "I think that God provided both a mother and a father for Jesus.  He made sure that Jesus was taken care of and grew up in a normal family.  I don't believe the story in the Qur'an."

I read an interesting link from a Christian (non-Muslim) site, edited it and here it is:

What kind of care did Joseph take as a father, when thinking Jesus the boy was in their company and they travelled on for a day? And then they began looking for him among friends and relatives, which means the boy Jesus was left alone for two days without food, water and care! How could Mary and Joseph forget about Jesus as they returned home from a distant place, especially if he was their only child? Is this possible for a couple with only one child? Clearly both neglected the child.

Angela wrote: I don't think they are mutually exclusive stories.  As with the initial statements, the Quran leaves out a number of spouses.  Just because the Quran does not detail Joseph's role, does not mean he was not present.  The Slaughter of the Innocents by Herod, the Escape to Egypt, non of these really contradict the Bible, nor does the Bible contradict the Quran on these points.  They exclude other information that contradict each other, such as... From the Quran, missing in the Bible: 1. Jesus spoke from the cradle. 2. Jesus declared himself a Prophet. 3. Jesus was given the mantle of Prophet while still in the womb. From the Bible, missing in the Quran: 1. Angels announce the Birth to Sheppards. 2. The Magi following the Star. 3. The declaration by Gabriel that Jesus is the Son of God 4. The Annunciation to Joseph   No, Joseph not being in the Quran doesn't mean he didn't exist.  However, without Joseph in the Bible, the second important Annuciation would not be recorded. Those things I listed here are important to the different teachings and traditions of Jesus Christ the Messiah.  Was he the Son of God or Not? (Not for this thread, so don't respond to the rhetorical question0 But, Joseph, IN MY OPINION, most certainly existed.  God provides for his prophets, he provides for the special women.  The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) took in several widows, so that they would be cared for by a righteous man.  Would Allah have denied Maryam the same rights and protections?  No, of course not.  So she must have been cared for by someone until her miraculous son came of age?  Obviously, Joseph died before Jesus started his ministry. This is evident in the Bible when Jesus asks John to care for his mother.  I feel the denial of Joseph is an arguement without real credible evidence.  Its not as important to the diety of Jesus as one might believe, yet its very important to Mary.

Bismillah,

I don't recall hearing an argument before from Muslims that Joseph didn't exist.  However, I think that as her dad was mentioned, he could have cared for her also.  She probably had uncles as well.  Or Joseph could have been there for her.

As a Muslim, it is certain to me that she was alone at some point during childbirth because of her anguished cry during it in which the Holy Quran states that she was alone.

I love the Quraanic story.  It is beautiful.  Even alone, Allah, The Most Loving and our Protector is with us.

Thanks for starting this topic, Sister Angela.

(I'd like to say that I appreciate your signature today: Don't suffer from insanity.  Enjoy every minute of it! because it makes me laugh every time I see it.)

Peace

Annie,

"I'm surprised that a Muslim such as yourself would say something against Mary."

Annie, we are discussing your scripture. We are not talking against Mary. It is what is reported there? Isn't that so? We are thus questioning what the inspired writers wrote.

There's nothing like the story you posted above in the Bible, bmzsp.  Whoever wrote that doesn't know the Bible or much about Christianity.  The true Bibilical story is that both Joseph and Mary were frantic when they realized Jesus was not with them.  And Annie is right....he was a 12 year old boy when this happened.  When they found him he was "preaching" in the Temple.  When they asked him (in today's language) "what the heck do you think you're doing??!!) He replied, "Did you not know I must be about my Father's business?"  And then he went on with them.  The point made was that both Joseph and Mary were extremely upset to find him missing.

**mutters, "hate it when Christians get the Bible stories wrong**

God's Peace!

AnnieTwo wrote: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Andalus, I think that God provided both a mother and a father for Jesus.  He made sure that Jesus was taken care of and grew up in a normal family.  I don't believe the story in the Qur'an.

You are welcome to your opinions of course, but they (opinions) do not invalidate the account found in the Quran.

Annie2 wrote: By the way, are you going to get to my point on the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy fulfillment claim any time soon? I found some information for you on this subject  It will be coming soon.  I haven't forgotten.  What I found should answer all of your concerns. Annie

Thanks Annie, but keep in mind that I did not ask for references and books or websites. Actually, I am aware of the major attempts to reconcile the problems I posted. In my study of your faith before I converted to Islam, I tried to resolve the points I have presented, and it was in vain. None of them resolve the problem, and I would be happy to debate your use of the material, which is different from me having to debate your websites.
Peace

Annie,

There are thousands of articles floating over the net. I read that myself and it was exactly as I had described it. If I find it again, I will let you know.

It's not me. The article written by Christian/s blames Joseph and Mary. If you have something contradictory, I will question that and raise objections and the onus will be on you to clarify.

For example, I read St Iraeneus said that Jesus lived to be 98 and lived with John in Asia, I may accept that as he was a respected figure. If he said Jesus was 98, that would mean Jesus was "crucified" at 98! I can't be producing every link for you here. You will have to take my word for it, as I never quote/write anything that I have not read myself.