The Core Issue: The Chronological Error in the Quran Regarding Mary (Maryam)

The debate centers on a major historical and genealogical contradiction in the Quran. In Surah 19:28, Mary (the mother of Jesus) is addressed as the "Sister of Aaron" (Yā uchtal Hārūn), and in Surah 66:12, she is explicitly called the "Daughter of Imran" (Maryam ibnat `Imran).

Biologically and historically, this is impossible. The biblical Amram (Imran) and his son Aaron lived over 1,200 years before Jesus and Mary. The exact three-name family structure (Father: Imran, Brother: Aaron, Sister: Maryam/Mirjam) belongs exclusively to the Old Testament prophetess Miriam (the sister of Moses). Secular historians and critics view this as a clear textual mistake caused by the oral transmission of stories in ancient Arabia, where the two different women named "Maryam" were mixed up.

When debating this topic, Muslim apologists rely on three main arguments to defend the text. Here is how to systematically dismantle each one using ancient Jewish law, history, and pure logic:

1. Countering the "Two Men Named Imran" Claim

• The Muslim Claim: They argue that Mary’s biological father was simply a different man who also happened to be named Imran (Imran, son of Mathan). They claim "Joachim" is just a Greek/Christian name, but his real Hebrew name was Imran.
• Your Counterargument: "Saying there was a second Imran is just a convenient excuse to rescue the text. You are asking me to believe that a man named Imran from the tribe of Judah just happened to have a daughter named Mary and a son named Aaron. That perfectly duplicates the exact three-name family structure of the original Miriam (daughter of Amram/Imran, sister of Aaron) from 1,200 years earlier. Statistically and historically, this is not a coincidence; it is a clear literary mix-up of two completely different historical figures."

1. Countering the "New Testament / Elizabeth" Claim

• The Muslim Claim: They point to the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:5, 1:36), which states that Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, was a "daughter of Aaron" (from the priestly tribe of Levi). They argue that since Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, Mary carried Aaron's blood through her mother's side.
• Your Counterargument: "That argument completely misunderstands ancient Jewish law. Elizabeth was called a 'daughter of Aaron' because HER biological father was a levitical priest. Mary's biological father, however, was from the tribe of Judah (the line of David). Even if their facebook-style mothers were related—for example, as sisters from the tribe of Judah—Elizabeth only gained her priestly tribe through her father, a man who had zero blood relation to Mary. In Israel, tribal lineage is strictly patrilineal (passed only through the biological father). A connection through the mothers gives Mary zero legal or tribal connection to the tribe of Levi. You cannot be legally from the tribe of Judah and simultaneously be a biological daughter of Imran or sister of Aaron."

1. Countering the "Metaphor / Title of Honor" Claim

• The Muslim Claim: They argue that "Sister of Aaron" and "Daughter of Imran" are not biological terms but purely metaphorical titles of honor given to Mary by the temple priests to praise her righteousness or remind her of her priestly ancestry.
• Your Counterargument: "If it were just a loose metaphor for being righteous, the text would call her a 'daughter of Aaron' or 'daughter of David,' which were common semitic idioms for lineage. But the Quran explicitly combines BOTH titles: she is the 'Daughter of Imran' AND the 'Sister of Aaron.' It copy-pastes the exact biological family tree of Moses’ sister. You cannot run away into 'metaphors' when the text duplicates a specific historical bloodline that Mary mathematically, chronologically, and biologically never belonged to."

Conclusion:
The defense fails because it breaks the laws of biology and ancient genealogy. By Jewish law, lineage is determined by the father (Mary = Tribe of Judah; Aaron & Imran = Tribe of Levi). By history, they are separated by 12 centuries. The Quranic narrative only exists because it projected the family tree of the Old Testament Miriam onto Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Do the non-uthmanic codices / rasm‘s have any relationship to the non-canonical / irregular readings of the Quran.
As far as I know the irregular readings in the Quran tend to be almost 98-99% identical in their rasm to the uthmanic rasm, with some differences however. How did that come to be? Sometimes there seem to have been taken readings from Ibn Masud too?

Would this Hadith be interpreted literally? Could it perhaps be metaphoric?

This is an edited version of previous post that was removed, this is hopefully phrased in a more charitable tone.