الرد على غباء النصارى بخصوص شبهة يا اخت هارون

اضافة مهمة :

العهد القديم حجة على اليهود و النصارى وليس علينا
فحينما نقول ان عمران هو اسم لابي مريم عليها السلام فعلا و انه مختلف عن عمران ابو موسى عليه الصلاة و السلام

فلا يحق لاحد ان يحتج علينا بكتب اليهود و النصارى

و كفى بحديث النبي عليه الصلاة و السلام حجة و تفسيرا

فهارون في الاية هو هارون اخر ليس هارون النبي عليه الصلاة و السلام بدلالة حديث النبي عليه الصلاة و السلام و القرائن الاخرى التي ذكرناها من الكتاب و السنة الصحيحة

و عمران ابو مريم عليها السلام هو عمران اخر و ليس نفسه هو ابو موسى عليه الصلاة و السلام بدلالة حديث النبي عليه الصلاة و السلام و القرائن الاخرى التي ذكرناها

و اما من يحتج علينا بالتشابه فلا اصل لاحتجاجه للاسباب التي ذكرناها و لان العهد القديم اصلا لا يلزمنا و لا نحتج به اصلا


و ان كان اليهودي او النصراني لا يزال يكابر بناءا على التشابه في الاسماء فقط فليزم نفسه قبل ان يلزمنا


انجيل متى الاصحاح 1 العدد 16 : (( وَيَعْقُوبُ وَلَدَ يُوسُفَ رَجُلَ مَرْيَمَ الَّتِي وُلِدَ مِنْهَا يَسُوعُ الَّذِي يُدْعَى الْمَسِيحَ ))

بنفس قاعدة تشابه الاسماء التي يكابر بها النصراني فانه حينها يحق لنا ان نقول له كتابك يقول ان جد المسيح مباشرة هو يعقوب المعروف باسرائيل ابو الاسباط و ابوه مباشرة في سلسلة النسب هو السبط يوسف عليه الصلاة و السلام و هو زوج مريم عليها السلام !!!!!!!! و على هذا فالمسيح سبق الفترة الزمانية لموسى و هارون عليهما الصلاة و السلام بقرون اذا ما طبقنا قاعدة النصراني المكابر في هذا النص

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محمد سني 1989

اضافة مهمة :

و ان كان اليهودي او النصراني لا يزال يكابر بناءا على التشابه في الاسماء فقط فليزم نفسه قبل ان يلزمنا


انجيل متى الاصحاح 1 العدد 16 : (( وَيَعْقُوبُ وَلَدَ يُوسُفَ رَجُلَ مَرْيَمَ الَّتِي وُلِدَ مِنْهَا يَسُوعُ الَّذِي يُدْعَى الْمَسِيحَ ))

بنفس قاعدة تشابه الاسماء التي يكابر بها النصراني فانه حينها يحق لنا ان نقول له كتابك يقول ان جد المسيح مباشرة هو يعقوب المعروف باسرائيل ابو الاسباط و ابوه مباشرة في سلسلة النسب هو السبط يوسف عليه الصلاة و السلام و هو زوج مريم عليها السلام !!!!!!!! و على هذا فالمسيح سبق الفترة الزمانية لموسى و هارون عليهما الصلاة و السلام بقرون اذا ما طبقنا قاعدة النصراني المكابر في هذا النص

---

إضافه مهمة
جزاك الله خيرا

اضافة :

انصف بعض المستشرقين القران الكريم في هذا الامر

و اقصد بالبعض هنا اثنان المستشرق سال SALE و المستشرق جيروك GEROCKE

حيث نفيا ان تكون هذه الاية قد جعلت مريم عليها السلام ام المسيح عليه الصلاة و السلام اختا للنبي هارون عليه الصلاة و السلام

وقد نقل قولهما الدكتور عبد الرحمن بدوي في كتابه دفاع عن القران ضد منتقديه الصفحة 174- 175


http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/attachme...chmentid=17235




http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/attachme...chmentid=17236



file:///Users/MacbookPro/Downloads/دفاع عن القرآن ضد منتقديه ـ.pdf

للتوثيق
http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/attachme...chmentid=17235


http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/attachme...chmentid=17236

http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/attachme...chmentid=17943
http://www.ebnmaryam.com/vb/attachme...chmentid=17944

اضافة مهمة :

بعد بحث وجدنا ان هذا الوصف موجود في كتاب او عمل نصراني يرجع إلى بداية القرن السابع يعرف بقراءة ارميا Lection of Jeremiah حيث نجد عبارة "هارون اخي مريم " وقد كانت تقرا نصوصه كليتورجيا لتقديس مريم عليها السلام و هذه الليتورجيا متاثرة بطقوس كنيسة كسينمائيّ في فلسطين في القرنين الخامس و السادس والتي كانت تقدس مريم عليها السلام في طقوسها و ادعيتها
نقرا من The Qur'نn and its Hypertextuality in Light of Redaction Criticism
Guillaume Dye (Université libre de Bruxelles, ULB) الصفحة 11-13
The Marian liturgy in Jerusalem, after the reform of the end of the 6th century, was a stational liturgy." It lasted five days (13-17 August), was centered on Mary's Dormition (celebrated on 15 August), and began on 13 August at the Kathisma church, with the feast of the Memory of Mary." Thanks to Georgian sources (Georgian lectionaries and homiliaries count among our best evidence for reconstructing Late Antique Jerusalem's religious practices),12 we have some information about the content of this liturgical circle, even if the evidence is not always as limpid as we could hope….. For 13 August, it mentions a liturgical reading, ie. a lection "from the words of the prophet Jeremiah", which was read at the Kathisma church, in commemoration of "the gathering in Bethlehem, when the apostles led the Theotokos forth from Bethlehem to Zion" 52
The Lection of Jeremiah is a brief (2 pages) and composite work. Two thirds of the text is simply a quotation from the Life of Jeremiah, a brief apocrypha to be found in the collection of the Lives of the Prophets. The last third consists in interpolations which are specific to the Lection. It is also a composite work in another respect, since it contains elements related to the feast of the Memory of Mary, and others related to the Dormition (as shown by several passages and also by the superscription). It dates most probably from the first decades of the 7th century.54 ….
Then the Lection mentions another oracle (§§ 8-10):
"And the prophet [Jeremiah] said: 'His coming will be a sign for you, and for other children at the end of the world. And nobody will bring forth the hidden Ark from the rock, except the priest Aaron, the brother of Mary. And nobody will unveil the tables therein, nor be able to read them, except the lawgiver Moses, the chosen of the Lord. And at the resurrection of the dead, the Ark will be the first to rise from the rock and to be placed on Mount Sinai, so that the word of the prophet David will be fulfilled, in which he said: 'Arise, O Lord, to your resting place, You and the Ark of Your holiness', which is the Holy Virgin Mary who passes from this world to the presence of God, she to whom the apostles proclaimed in Zion the praise of Myrrh saying: 'Today the Virgin is being guided from Bethlehem to Zion, and today from earth to heaven', and all the saints are gathered together around her and wait for the Lord, putting to flight the enemy who aims to destroy them."58))

وقد يقول قائل ان المراد هنا هي مريم او مريام اخت موسى و هارون و لكن الناقد غلام داي يرد على الادعاء الساذج في الصفحة 14
Second, there is the formula "the priest Aaron, the brother of Mary" (ahron mgdelman jmaman mariamisman). The Lection of Jeremiah always speaks of Mary, and not Miryam, and since the author is patently a (clever) monk, he would not mistake Miryam for Mary. The formula priest brother of Mary is an addition of the Lection. Its typological and symbolic signification is obvious. Note also the mention, in addition to Aaron, of Moses, "the chosen of the Lord". Furthermore, following the Life of Jeremiah, the Lection of Jeremiah explains that the rock is located in the desert (exactly where the Ark was before), between two mountains, where Moses reposes (§ 13). Moreover, in fulfillment of the prophecy, God granted Jeremiah a place next to Moses and Aaron (§ 14) - beside the Ark, which remains a symbol for Mary.
All this brings an exceptionally close typology between Mary and the "family of 'Amran". It links Mary to Aaron and Moses, on two levels at least: the Ark of Covenant and the Dormition.
Indeed, it should be remembered that, according to Jewish traditions (of course known by Christians too), Moses, Aaron and Miryam all experienced a dormition (like Mary, and her mother Anna), dying "through a kiss of God".

المذهل ان الناقد يؤكد استحالة معرفة عربي من الحجاز لمثل هذه المعلومة و انه لا بد ان راهبا سريانيا قد الف هذه القصة الخاصة و ادخلها في القران بعد ان اسلم و اعلم تبعيته للخلفاء بعد فتح الشام و العراق فهي بالنسبة له و لكثير من قصص القران اليهودي و النصراني الفت بعد وفاة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم و هو مضطر إلى هذا التفسير فالاعتراف بالاعجاز يخالف منهجه و مثل هذه المعلومة لم تعرف عند يوحنا الدمشقي و لا نصارى نجران !!!
يقول في الصفحة 17
11) Nothing suggests that he relies on oracular words of Muhammad. Thanks to his intimate knowledge of Palestinian Marian liturgical traditions, he composes a dialogue hymn, following the model of hymns which were sung or recited in a (Christian) liturgical setting.
It is highly unlikely, to say the least, that a scribe corresponding to such a profile could have belonged to the Meccan or Medinan circle of Muhammad - or more generally to the Higaz, except if we are ready to imagine Mecca or Medina as an Arabic Edessa, Antioch, or Jerusalem. The most likely explanation is that this author should be situated elsewhere than the Higaz - most probably, indeed, not too far from Jerusalem, since he was extremely familiar with the Hagiopolite liturgy. Besides, such a skillful text requires various specific competencies, and we should wonder how they could have been acquired. The obvious explanation is that our author belongs to the class of the religious literati. In other words, he was certainly a Christian monk, who "converted" to the new faith, or put his pen at the service of the newcomers - certainly, therefore, after the conquests.68

وفي الصفحة 19
((Hence the following dilemma: we cannot say that the general framework given by the Muslim tradition is right and, at the same time, take seriously the Qur'anic text. If we take the Qur'ān seriously (namely, if we do not bind it on the Procrustean bed that Muslim tradition prepared for it), we should indeed admit at least one of the following scenarios. First hypothesis: the Higaz at the time of the Prophet had a level of Christian presence and literary culture which was comparable to the cities or monasteries of Syria and Palestine: there were Christians in the Higaz, Christian ideas were known, and it was also possible to meet there the kind of scribe who was able to write such texts as (among other examples) surah 3, 5, 18 and 19 (and this pertains to the so-called Meccan and Medinan suras). Second hypothesis: at least in part (namely, all the time, or only before the emigration to Yatrib), Muhammad's career did not take place in the Higaz, but further north, for example in Trans-Jordan or Palestine. Third hypothesis: at the time of the Prophet, there was a Christian presence in the Higaz, but the situation was not comparable to Syria or Palestine, or even to what we find further north in the Arabian Peninsula. It was, rather, the subject of a typical process of acculturation. Therefore, if some scholarly Qur'anic passages were written at this time (or earlier?), the "scholars" who composed them were certainly people situated further north (but maybe also in al-Hira?"), with whom the Higazi Arabs maintained relations. Fourth hypothesis: we should disconnect, more decidedly, the redaction of the Qur'ān and Muhammad's career, and acknowledge that a (more or less substantial) part of the Qur'ăn was written after the death of Muhammad (and maybe also, for a smaller part, after
'Utmăn?). Regarding the scholarly passages of the Qur'an, a model combining the last two hypotheses seems the most plausible solution.
More specifically, about Q 19:1-63*: as I said above, the simplest and most plausible explanation is that it was written after the conquests - and more precisely: after the conquest of Jerusalem (which took place in 635 or 638).)

https://academia.edu/resource/work/12358270

وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم