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.

  Al-Galalan Al-Mahalli and As-Suyuti state,

  “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.
(Al-Mahalli and As-Suyuti, Tafsir-ul-Galalin, page 543)

  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.
(Ash-Shawkani, Fath-ul-Qadir, Volume 5, page 340)

  The Shi’ite Imam At-Tabarasi in “Majm’-ul-Bayan” states,

  The above is adequate to refute the filthy missionary argument; Imam As-Suhaili in his discussion of this verse notes,

  Do not allow your imagination to go elsewhere; this is one of delicate gestures because the Qur'an 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.
(quoted by Al-Qurtubi, Al-Gami' le Ahkam-el-Qur'an, Volume 17, page 304)

  However, if you are interested in more detailed research and analysis of the topic, you are advised to read the rest of this paper.

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’an as having no furooj (sing. farj) in it i.e., no gaps or tears (Qur’an 60:5). In the Arabic-Arabic Dictionary published by Majma’ Al-Lughat Al-‘Arabiyyah (the Council of Arabic Language) in Egypt we read,

  Metaphorically the word can be used as a reference to male genital organs (cf. Qur’an 5:23, 29:70, 30:24, 31:24 and 35:33) and less commonly to female genital organs (cf. Qur’an 31:24). 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 (peace be upon him) has commanded in the sound tradition related by At-Tirmithi, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Al-Baihaqi on authority of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Sunan-ut-Tirmithi, n. 2105, Musnad Ahmed, n. 3916 and 4027 and Sunan-ul-Baihaqi, n. 21314 and 21670). 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. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi notes,

  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’an 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.
(Al-Qaradawi, Kaif nata’amal ma’a Al-Qur’an Al-‘Azeem? “How to Deal with the Glorious Qur’an?”, page 284)

  He gives some examples then adds,

  Interpretation (ta’weel) 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 Allah 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.
(ibid., page 185)

  Technically, interpretation (ta’weel) means diversion of the word from its explicit meaning to a possible overridden meaning due to presence of an evidence that makes it overriding (Ash-Shawkani, Irshad-ul-Fuhoul, page 176). 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 equivocal evidence is inadequate to divert the word from its literal meaning, thus it is 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 I 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), I’m going to display opinions of various scholars and exegetes concerning the phrase.

  Imam At-Tabari states,

  Imam Al-Qurtubi states,

  Imam Ibn Kathir states,

   “And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her farj” i.e., protected and purified it; guarding (ihsan) is chastity and absence of immorality.
(Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur’an Al-‘Azeem, Volume 8, page 92)

  As-Samarqandi states,

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

  Al-Mawardi states,

  Ar-Razi 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-Jawzi states,

  Ath-Tha’alibi states,

  Al-Alousi states,

  Al-Farra’ 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 solider in guarding herself”.

  This quotation of the famous Arab grammarian Al-Farra’ by Al-Alousi 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 solider 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-Shawkani states,

  The Shi’ite scholar At-Tabarasi 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.

  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’anic interpretation - only one of them is the correct one.

  We say - and Allah 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 Allah knows best.

Exegesis of "breathed into it"

  In contrast to the controversy - which we have settled - concerning what is meant by "guarded her farj", 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'an done by Dr. Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Ph. D. & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan renders the verse to "and We breathed into (the sleeve of her shirt or her garment) through Our Rūh [i.e. Jibrael (Gabriel)]"
(Holy Qur'an 66:12)

  Imam Ibn Qutaibah (died 276 A.H.) states,

  The Messiah is Spirit of God (Ruhullah) because he is the breath of Gabriel into the garment of Mary.
(Ibn Qutaibah, Ta’wil Mushkil Al-Qur’an, page 487)

  Ibn Jarir At-Tabari states,

  “We breathed into it” - into the opening of her garment.
(At-Tabari, op. cit.)

  Al-Qurtubi 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”.
(Al-Qurtubi, op. cit.)

  Ibn Kathir 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).
(Ibn Kathir, op. cit.)

  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,

  Al-Baghwi states,

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

  Az-Zamakhshari in “Al-Kashaf” states (commentary on 21:91),

… because he breathed into the opening of her garment and the breath reached inside of her.
(Az-Zamakhshar, Tafsir-ul-Kashaf, Volume 3, page 204)

  An-Nasafi in “Madarek-ut-Tanzil” 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.
(An-Nasafi, Madarek-ut-Tanzil, Volume 2, page 99)

  Abu Hayyan in “Al-Bahr Al-Muheet” states (commentary on 21:91),

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

  Ar-Razi states,

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

  Ibn-ul-Jawzi states,

  Here Imam Ibn-ul-Jawzi 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 breathed but into Mary's Jayb.

  Al-Galalan state,

  “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.
(Al-Mahalli and As-Suyuti, op. cit.)

  Ash-Shawkani states,

  The Shi’ite Imam At-Tabarasi 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 mention of breathing into Mary’s vagina in the Qur’an, then his objection is baseless for no single Muslim commentator ever claimed that the pronoun in Qur’an 66:12 refers to the vagina of Virgin Mary. But the controversy here would be about how the breath reached the womb of Mary; Abu Hayyan, Az-Zamakhshari and An-Nasafi note that it infiltrated her body based upon their understanding of the verse in Surat-ul-Anbiyaa’ “We breathed into her” while later scholars like Ibn Kathir and Al-Galan state that the breath descended and entered her womb through her private organ based upon their supposition that since the birth of Jesus was vaginal, then his conception must have been vaginal too. Simple comparison shows that the opinion of Abu Hayyan, Az-Zamakhshari and An-Nasafi is more acceptable and acquires legitimacy from the Qur’an while that of Ibn Kathir and Al-Galan is no more than a supposition without evidence in the Qur’an or tradition. And Allah 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.
(As quoted from Rev. Charles Merrill Smith in Ben Edward Akerley, The X-Rated Bible, page xv. Published by Omar Brothers Publication, 1994)

  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

Numbers 25:1

Micah 1:8

Ezekiel 16:7-8

Ezekiel 23:16-20

Proverbs 5:18-19

  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'ān, 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.

Conclusion

  We have shown that the interpretation of Qur'ān 66:12 clearly affirms that Mary, the mother of Christ Jesus (peace be upon them both), 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'ān 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 (peace be upon him).

  It is also clear that the Qur'ānic 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!

Appendix
The Qur'an cannot be a text of divine origin

  The Christian missionary Sam Shamoun in the end of his paper concludes that the Qur’an cannot be a text of divine origin because of the unacceptable meanings included in it. Perhaps he is correct in this conclusion and we may tend to agree with him due to many reasons, for example ..

1. The Qur’an does not say a prophet slept with his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38).

2. The Qur’an does not say a prophet slept with his neighbour's wife and plotted to kill him (2 Samuel 11:1-27).

3. The Qur’an does not say a prophet worshipped the Calf (Exodus 32:1-6).

4. The Qur’an does not say a prophet changed his religion, worshipped idols and built them temples (1 Kings 11:1-13).

5. The Qur’an does not say a prophet told lies and God deceived and destroyed another prophet (1 Kings 13:1-30).

6. The Qur’an does not say David, Solomon and Jesus were originally bastards from the seed of Pharez son of Judah (Genesis 38:12:30).

7. The Qur’an does not say the firstborn of the Great Prophet who was the firstborn of God slept with his stepmother (Genesis 35:22 and 49:3-4).

8. The Qur’an does not say the second son of the same Great Prophet (firstborn of God) slept with his daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:12:30).

9. The Qur’an does not say John the Baptist who was the greatest Israelite Prophet ever according to Jesus - though the least in the kingdom of God is greater than him! - failed to recognize his second lord on earth although this lord followed him and got baptized by him until he saw the third god descending on this second god as pigeon (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11 and Luke 3:21-22).

10. The Qur’an does not say the apostle of this god, Judea the Iscariot, who performed many miracles in his name and was among the disciples who were greater than Moses and other Israelite Prophets according to Jesus, delivered his god to the hands of his enemies for 30 pieces (Matthew 26:14-16, 27:3-9, Mark 14:10-11, Luke 22:3-6 and John 18:1-5).

11. The Qur’an does not say Caiaphas, the high priest,  who was a prophet according to John the Baptist rejected, insulted and made a verdict to kill his god (Matthew 26:57:68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:54-71 and John 18:12-24).

  For all the above reasons, we conclude that the Qur'an, unlike the Bible, cannot be a text of divine origin.
 
 

Back to Noorullah main page