Posted on 02/10/2017 7:46:46 AM PST by markomalley
At a time when Western people are constantly warned to speak respectfully of Muhammad, or else offended Muslims might respond with violence — to the shame and blame of those who exercise their freedom of expression — consider what Muslims regularly say about the things non-Muslims hold dear.
Recently during his televised Arabic-language program, Dr. Salem Abdul Galil — previously deputy minister of Egypt’s religious endowments for preaching — gleefully declared that, among other Biblical women (Moses’ sister and Pharaoh’s wife), “our prophet Muhammad — prayers and peace be upon him — will be married to Mary the Virgin in paradise.” (Note: the Arabic word for “marriage” denotes “legal sexual relations” and is devoid of Western, “romantic,” or Platonic connotations.)
Where did Galil — this governmental official who also holds that Muslims can wear the hated crucifix to deceive Christians — get this idea? As usual, from Muhammad himself. In a hadith that was deemed reliable enough to be included in the renowned Ibn Kathir’s corpus, Muhammad declared that “Allah will wed me in paradise to Mary, Daughter of Imran”[1] (whom Muslims identify with Jesus’ mother).
Thus, Eulogius of Cordoba, an indigenous Christian of Muslim-occupied Spain, once wrote, “I will not repeat the sacrilege which that impure dog [Muhammad] dared proffer about the Blessed Virgin, Queen of the World, holy mother of our venerable Lord and Savior. He claimed that in the next world he would deflower her.”
As usual, it was Eulogius’ offensive words about Muhammad — and not the latter’s offensive words about Mary — that had dire consequences: he, as well as many other Spanish Christians vociferously critical of Muhammad, were found guilty of speaking against Islam and publicly tortured and executed in “Golden Age” Cordoba in 859.
Not only do many Western academics suppress or whitewash such historical anecdotes of Muslim persecution of Christians, but some — whether intentionally or out of ignorance — warp them in an effort to portray Christian victims of Islam as Christian persecutors of Islam. Thus, after quoting Eulogius’ aforementioned lament against Muhammad, John V. Tolan, a professor and member of Academia Europaea, writes:
This outrageous claim [that Muhammad will marry Mary], it seems, is Eulogius’s invention; I know of no other Christian polemicist who makes this accusation against Muhammad. Eulogius fabricates lies designed to shock his Christian reader. This way, even those elements of Islam that resemble Christianity (such as reverence of Jesus and his virgin mother) are deformed and blackened, so as to prevent the Christian from admiring anything about the Muslim other. The goal is to inspire hatred for the “oppressors” …. Eulogius sets out to show that the Muslim is not a friend but a potential rapist of Christ’s virgins (Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination, p.93).
As already seen, however, it was Muhammad himself — not any “Christian polemicist” — who claimed that Mary would be his eternal concubine. But facts apparently don’t matter to academics like Tolan, who are more eager to demonize Eulogius in an effort to exonerate the “offended” Muslims who slaughtered him.
Putting real or feigned history aside, let’s return to modern day Egypt and consider why Dr. Galil — a governmental official described as a “moderate,” a bridge-builder between Muslims and Christians — would openly say what he knows millions of Orthodox Christians in Egypt will find repugnant: that Christ’s mother would be given to — and have sex with — what Christians deem a false prophet?
To be sure, many Egyptian Christians did express outrage, including on social media, though none responded with violence. Had a leading Christian cleric, or even a little Coptic boy, claimed that Aisha — Muhammad’s favorite wife, who holds a venerated place in Sunni tradition — will be married to and have sex with a false prophet, he would have been beaten and, if not killed in the process, imprisoned under Egypt’s “anti -defamation of religions” law, which supposedly protects both Islam and Christianity.
But as every Muslim and Christian knows, Egypt’s “anti-defamation of religions” law — which has been responsible for the arrest and punishment of many Copts accused of mocking Islam on social media — is in reality an anti-defamation of Islam law. Things held sacred by Christians are free game — including, apparently, for “moderate” governmental officials.
After all, Islam — beginning with its prophet and all throughout its scriptures — is built on defaming non-Muslims and their religions, Judaism and Christianity in particular. So how can repeating what Islam holds to be true ever be deemed blasphemous by Muslims — sensitivities of infidels be damned?
Many Christians assert that Mary must have had sex because ... I don’t know what. I’ve just kind of figured it’s cultural.
So it's not just a question of anti-Christian theology. Muhammad garbled the Bible narrative as an illiterate who'd only heard it second hand.
That’s very interesting. I did not know that.
No, it’s that Scripture indicates neither her perpetual virginity nor her having been conceived without sin. These are merely human traditions.
She was clearly a virgin when Jesus was conceived and when He was born ... Scripture states that very clearly.
...and The Most Sexually Maladjusted People on the Planet strike again.
Satan obviously whispered into M’s perked ear, and he now energizes what came to be called “Islam” as a result.
He is “...the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience.”
I’m not convinced that Mo was the sole AOTK (author of the Koran).
Because they were raised to hate Catholics.
Matthew 1:24-25 strongly suggests that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This idea is not created out of thin air.
At least it’s just a fantasize not a painting made by Western anti religious nuts throwing elephant dung on the Virgin Mary...
You’re asking the Vatican to read the Bible.
That’s a bit of a stretch.
Why was Mary ever married to a man?
Is it a sin for a woman to have sexual relations with her husband?
Why are there people described as Jesus’s brothers in the Bible?
If perpetual virginity is central to Christianity, why wasn’t that set forth in the writings in the new testament?
Would a married Jewish woman refuse sex for the entirety of her marriage?
Not trying to start a fight, I was baptized a Catholic but never was confirmed and am puzzled by a handful of Catholic beliefs.
As I stated in my post, the idea that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relations after the birth of Jesus is not created out of thin air. The opposing view seems to have been. I have seen a lot of Catholic apologists try to explain this verse away to prop up the perpetual virginity doctrine but none of the arguments are compelling IMO.
Mad Mo had a demon growling in his ear ... mohammedanism was conceived in Hell, and unleashed on the world through a rapist and murderer.
So how can repeating what Islam holds to be true ever be deemed blasphemous by Muslims — sensitivities of infidels be damned?
That’s sarcasm, I’m sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.