“Woman” and the Wedding at Cana

[1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”] John 2:1-4. [25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.] John 19:25-27. In both passages, it is incorrect for Jesus℗ to address his mother Mary℗ as “woman” because a son addressing his mother in this manner is inappropriate, let alone a prophet from those of “Intense Ability” such as Jesus℗. And the fact that this way of addressing her is inappropriate is a matter acknowledged by the Christians and the clerics of the Church from different sects, which is why they try to interpret this speech by either the ideology of the absolute deity that they attribute to Jesus Christ℗ and the matter of the hypostasis, and its falsehood was clarified by Imam Ahmed al-Hasan℗, or by justifications that do not hold in the face of scientific criticism. So the addressing by “woman” shows that the speaker is not her son, and that is what Imam Ahmed al-Hasan℗ said, ﴾“The crucified one’s addressing of Mary the mother of Jesus℗ shows that he is not her son,

otherwise would it be appropriate for a man to address his mother by ‘woman’.”﴿ As a result, the two passages which they insisted upon attributing to Jesus℗, meaning the son of Mary, are 100% false. And now it is correct to say that the second text in John 19 comes from one besides the son of Mary℗, who is the look-alike of Jesus℗ and was crucified on his behalf, and this is a matter proven by Imam Ahmed al-Hasan℗ by proofs and by connecting the passages, reasoning and reality. Thus the passage is valid, and that is the saying of the Imam℗, ﴾“Yes, it is correct for the crucified one to address her with this word if he is not Jesus℗.”﴿ Moreover, this passage is an addition to the proofs and that is his saying℗, ﴾“And his addressing her with this word is to clarify that she is not his mother and that he is not Jesus℗.”﴿ And it is a possibility to say the least, and it cannot be refuted except by proving that the crucified one is Jesus℗ himself, and there is no proof of that, rather the proof is now established that the look-alike exists. From another aspect, there is the incident in which Mary℗ was addressed as “woman” at the wedding in Cana, unless it is possible to attribute it to anyone other than Jesus℗, it is 100% false. And most probably, this passage was thrown in by those who wanted to negate the possibility presented by the crucified one’s addressing of Mary℗, that he was not Jesus℗, meaning that the passage of the Cana wedding was added to the Gospel after the one who wrote the Gospel of John in its present form found himself in a dilemma due to the crucified one’s addressing of Mary℗ with “woman”. Therefore, the possibility is rather strong that the writer resorted to placing the same word of address at the beginning of the dispatch of Jesus℗; also, adding this phrase in an attempt to connect the two incidents, [My hour has not yet come], which makes the contradiction appear even more clearly. So what Mary℗ requested, assuming that the wine mentioned in the passage was not an intoxicant, was to only show a sign or a miracle of transforming water into another drink, and the hour has nothing to do with the request of transforming the water, except as a failed attempt to connect this incident and the incident in which the crucified one ad-

dressed Mary℗ with “woman”. Moreover, Jesus℗ has shown other miracles and responded to the request of some of those who requested healing or reviving the dead. So did Jesus℗ address them with the phrase, [“My hour has not yet come”]? Or did he scold them by saying, [“What does this have to do with me?”]? And the latter phrase is also very inappropriate to come from a son while addressing his mother, and it is no less harsh than the word “woman”. Anyhow, the incident is one of great confusion to say the least, as some of its passages contain great contradictions that are invalid, as has been made clear from the above. And you, may God support you, for the sake of argument, it is sufficient for you to clarify that the text is not obligatory for us as we do not believe that the present forms of the Gospel and the Torah are entirely correct, especially since there are clear contradictions concerning the manners of the prophets℗ and the messengers, rather the manners of people in general. Consequently, the discussion shifts to clarifying the invalidity of such a word coming from a son to his mother, let alone from Jesus℗ to Mary℗, as the matter is not particular to Jesus℗ or to Mary℗, it is rather a general matter that is entirely unacceptable. Yes, what is morally incorrect to come from a normal person is incorrect to come from a prophet℗. So the discussion can be restricted to this question: Is it appropriate for a son to address his mother as “woman”? If they say yes, then they have stumbled in their own stubbornness. And if they say that this is a specific matter, then why would it be? [19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”] 1 Kings 2:19-20. And if they said that the matter was specific to Jesus℗ because he is an absolute deity, then the discussion would be in order to clarify the invalidity of their ideology. As for the remaining claims, such as the fulfilment of the prophe-

cies or the texts of Jesus℗ and his mother by this addressing and so on, they are not of a scientific value in order to be discussed or turned to. So nothing makes the addressing correct except that it would come from a man to a woman who is a stranger to him, as is the reality in Jesus’ addressing of women who are strangers to him in the Gospel.

And praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Answered by the committee Dr. Tawfiq al-Maghribi Ramadan 1433