Do they show any knowledge of the sense given in Luke 1:35, ie. Messiah, born of the virgin?
Maybe they think all Christians are Ebionites, denying the virgin birth.
Yes - they explicitly categorically reject anything divine about the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, as do Ebionite Christians. The verse I cited is the
explicit formula used to reject exactly that - almost every Muslim knows it by heart.
The very idea has a Talmudic ring to me: I can't see anyone in those days thinking having sex with your wife could be in any way sinful to the point of needing to posit a virgin birth - they weren't prudes.
But Jerome said that he did translations of 2 versions of the Ebionite Matthew - one in Hebrew in Hebrew letters, and one in Syriac in Hebrew letters, both possibly written by Matthew, and both now either lost, or buried alongside the Sol Invictus chapel in Rome. (Cardinal Mai may have known where it is :-,) I think the former was kept locked up in Caesaria, and the latter was intended more for the masses. Many have posited, as I do, that the former ended up at the Greek Matthew, and the latter may have ended up as the Greek Luke. So in citing Luke <=2 (which is not in the Ebionite canon) you are just citing an equivalent to Matthew <=2, which is not in the Ebionite canon. QED.