How Many Angels
Visited Mary
- A Response
to a Criticism on the Qur'an -
Mr. Jochen Katz, in one of his
articles titled: “How
many angels were talking to Mary?” has stated that the two narratives in the
Qur'an regarding the incident when the angels of Allah visited Mary to give her the news
of the birth of Jesus - the Christ - are in contradiction with one another. In the first
instance, the Qur'an says that “angels” (i.e. the word in its plural form,
implying, in Arabic language, that there were at least three) visited Mary. While in the
second instance, it says that there was only one.
Writes Mr. Katz:
There are (at least) two passages in
the Qur'an relating the annunciation of Jesus' birth to Mary.
Behold! the angels said: “O
Mary! Allah has chosen thee …Behold! the angels said: “O
Mary! Allah gives thee glad tidings …
- Sura 3:42 & 45
Then we sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before he as a man in all respects. She
said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (Come not near) If thou dost
fear Allah.”
- Sura 19:17-18How many angels came to Mary? One or
three or more? [Correct me if the word for “angel” is in the dual, but if it is
plural then there have to be at least three.]
The object of this article is
to give answers to the objections raised by Mr. Katz in this respect.
Let us first of all consider
the related verses of the Qur'an. In Surah A'l i Imra'n, the Qur'an says:
And bring to mind when the
angels said: “Mary, God has chosen you; He has purified you and has exalted you above
all other women of the world”. “Mary, be obedient to your Lord, bow down and
submit [to Him] with those that submit”. This is an account of a hidden event. We
reveal it to you. You were not present when they cast lots to see which of them shall have
charge of Mary; nor were you present when they argued about her.
Bring to mind when the angels said:
“Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a “word” from Him; his name
shall be the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary; he shall be noble in this world as well as in the
hereafter; and he shall be amongst those who are close [to God]; he shall preach to
people, while in his cradle and while in the prime of manhood; and he shall be a righteous
man.” She said: “Lord, how can I bear a child, when no man has [even] touched
me?” He replied: “Even so it shall happen as told. God creates what He wills;
when He decides a thing, He needs only say 'Be', and it is.” (3: 43 - 47)
In Surah Maryam, the
Qur'an says:
And recount in the book, the
story of Mary. [The time] when she left her people and took for herself a place to the
eastern side and hid herself from them. We sent to her Our spirit, which appeared to her
as a perfect man. She said: “I give myself to the protection of the All Mercy (i.e. Al-Rahma'n)
from you, if you fear Him.” He replied: “I am but a messenger of your Lord and
have come to gift you a boy, pure [from sin]”. She asked: “How can I bear a
child, when a man has never even touched me and neither have I ever been unchaste?”
He said: “Thus shall it happen; your Lord says: It is easy for me.” (19: 16 -
21)
Before explaining my point of
view regarding these verses, I would first like to clarify that we can call two phenomena
“contradictory” when there is no possible explanation that can, in any
way resolve or remove the apparent contradiction. If, on the other hand, an explanation can
be given for the apparently contradicting phenomenon, then these phenomena cannot be
called “contradictory”. I do submit that everyone has a right to criticize the
explanation given. In such a case, if the explanation cannot face the criticism, it may
then be rejected, and subsequently, due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the
apparently contradictory phenomena may then be termed as a proven
“contradiction”. But, on the other hand, if the explanation adequately explains
the phenomena, then unless the explanation is logically and convincingly rejected, the
phenomena cannot be termed as “contradictory”.
By close examination of the
stated verses of the Qur'an, I think there can be two very acceptable explanations for the
objections raised by Mr. Katz. Either of these two explanations, if acceptable, remove the
objection raised by Mr. Katz in this respect. In case Mr. Katz or anyone of my readers
believes that neither of the explanations is acceptable, he should then present his
criticism on these explanations. Without rejecting both the explanations given, I really
do not think that the referred verses of the Qur'an can in any way be called
“contradictory”.
The First Explanation
A close look at Surah A'l i Imra'n shows that
the Surah from verse 33 to 63 presents, in a summarized form, some important events
from the time immediately preceding the birth of Jesus to that of his death. It is within
the narration of these events that the prayer of Mary's mother and her feelings at her
birth are mentioned; Zacharias' custody of Mary is mentioned; Zacharias' prayer for a son
is mentioned; John's birth is mentioned; Angels' visits to Mary is mentioned; the birth of
Jesus is mentioned; and some (major) events from the life of Jesus are mentioned. In
mentioning all these events, the Qur'an, following its normal style, has only referred to
some of the more important events and that too in a very brief and summarized form. As
should have been, events that are not as important from the perspective of the point that
the Qur'an wants to make are not even mentioned; repetitions in the referred events are
ignored; and to make the whole narration effective, some explanations and comments are
also given.
It is in the above context that the verses of Surah
A'l i Imra'n, referred to by Mr. Katz were revealed and placed.
Verse 37, 42 and 43 reveal that it was quite often
that angels visited Mary. It is not necessary that the two statements, given in 42 and in
43 relate to the same visit of the angels - although there is no reason to believe that
they were not. Then a third statement in verse 45 and 46 is given. Again, it is not
necessary that the third statement was given during the same visit in which the first or
the second or both the statements were given. The third statement may or may not have been
given in the same visit1. Moreover, the
“glad tidings” of a son, given to a woman, even if she is not married, is not
something very strange. There are many instances, in our everyday life that we hear a
statement from someone that relates to our (relatively) far off future. For instance,
while doing his high school, an intelligent student may hear from his tutor that 'You
shall soon be treating sick people'. The student is not surprised. He knows that what
his teacher implies is that after going through all the steps involved in becoming a
doctor, you shall become a successful doctor. Likewise, it should not have been strange
for a woman who is not even married to hear from an angel or a true prophet of God that
she shall mother a male child. Obviously, she could easily have assumed that in due course
of time she would get married and later she would bear a male child. But, on the other
hand, when the angel comes and tells a virgin that she has conceived a child, or that a
child grows in her belly, this should be some surprise. Now she is
likely to ask the question that Mary asked the angel.
In my opinion, one explanation may be thus: Angels of
God visit Mary and give her messages from her Lord; in one of these visits, they declare
that she shall mother a boy child; Mary is not surprised, as she presumes that she shall
bear the child after she gets married; some time later, the Spirit visits Mary and
declares that it has come to deliver her with the male child; hearing this, Mary is quite
surprised; she expresses her surprise and gets the mentioned answer from the Spirit.
This explanation implies that angels (plural) visited
Mary a number of times, but in the particular instance that she was given the news that
she shall now deliver the child, it was not angels but the “Spirit“.
Thus, in Surah A'l i Imra'n, where the life of Mary has been presented in a very
brief and summarized form, some of the important events of her life that took place at
different times have been covered without giving details of any particular incident. While
in Surah Maryam, the particular incident of Jesus' birth has been narrated in
detail, thereby clarifying some aspects that had remained vague in the first narration.
The basic premises for the above explanation are:
- In Surah A'l i Imra'n, the angels (plural) have
used the word “yubashiroke” i.e. God gives you the good news of giving
birth to a boy child. We know that the words “glad tidings” or “good
news” may or may not relate to an immediate happening. Thus, Mary could have
perceived the “good news” to relate to an event that would take place at some
future date, after her marriage. On the other hand, in Surah Maryam, the Spirit
uses the word: “le ahaba lake' ” (to deliver you with; to present you
with). These words, under the circumstances, imply that the referred gift was being
presented at that particular instance, and this is what surprised Mary.
- In Surah A'l i Imra'n, when Mary expresses her
surprise at getting the good news, she is given a reply by a person, who is referred to in
the Qur'an by a third person singular pronoun (qa'la, that is 'he said', in place
of qa'lat al-Mala'ikah or qa'lu', that is 'the angels said'). The reply does
not come from the angels, that have been referred to previously. So it seems that she
expressed her surprise not in front of the angels (plural) but to one angel (or as is
clarified in Surah Maryam, the Spirit). It seems that the surprise expressed
by Mary and the response that she received, does not relate to the same visit in which she
initially received the “good news”, but to a later visit by the Spirit.
If Mr. Katz and all those who have the stated objection in their mind only knew the Arabic
language, they would have known that the Qur'an by changing the pronouns has given a clear
hint in the narration of Surah A'l i Imra'n that the whole event does not refer to
one incident only.
To summarize, the narrative given in Surah A'l i
Imra'n does not refer to one incident only. It is a collection of various important
incidents that took place at different times, relating to the life of Jesus. While, in Surah
Maryam, the circumstances of Jesus' birth have been given in some detail. If looked at
the narratives of A'l i Imran and Maryam in this perspective, there is
absolutely no contradiction in the two narratives.
In case Mr. Katz or anyone else thinks that the above
explanation is not acceptable, he must take the pains of correcting me by informing me of
the reasons that hinder the acceptance of this explanation. I shall be obliged.
The Second Explanation
The two verses may also be explained in a different
way:
To fully understand this explanation, let us first
consider an everyday example from our lives: Suppose the President sends a delegation
headed by the Foreign Secretary and consisting of three Junior Secretaries to Russia.
Later on, while talking about one of the meetings of the delegation, the President says:
“My Secretaries reiterated the importance of open market economy; the Russians
were found to be quite interested in understanding and implementing it in their
country.” The press while reporting the incident writes: “The Foreign
Secretary succeeds in convincing Russia to bring about changes in its economic
structure and policies.” The Russian President, while talking about the same incident
says: “My Secretaries are forced to consider the American
proposal.” The Russian press writes: “The Chief Secretary was found to be
interested in the idea presented by the Americans.” And the Press of a third
country writes: “America influences Russia in economic matters.”
Look at the words used for the two delegations in the
various statements: Secretaries, the Foreign Secretary, Americans and America; likewise,
the Russian group has also been called by various titles: the Russians, Russia,
Secretaries, the Chief Secretary. The reader must note that all these different words have
been used to narrate the same event, and none of these can be termed a contradiction of
the other.
Let us now consider the referred verses in the light
of the same literary principle. The event referred to in these verses happens thus: God
sends a group of His angels, headed by the arch-angel Gabriel2 to Mary. Now, suppose while reporting this incident, we say:
“The angels said to Mary…”, at another time, we say: “Gabriel said to
Mary…” and at yet another time we say: “God said to Mary…”. Any one who
has no objection to the American/Russian example above, should not have any
objection here. If some one believes that the American/Russian example is not fully
compatible with the problem under consideration, I shall be most obliged if I am informed
of the reasons for its incompatibility. But if there is no objection on the compatibility
of the example with the problem in question then the explanation given above has to be
accepted.
One question raised by Mr. Katz in this regard is:
Why does Mary only seek refuge from one of the angels as she only addresses one in Sura
19:18? Were the others not like men and threatening to her?
Although I do not think that this question has
anything to do with the real problem under consideration, but still, just to answer the
question, I think the question raised by Mr. Katz himself, i.e. “Were the others not
like men and threatening to her?” itself is a plausible explanation to the above
question. As I see it, a group of angels, headed by the arch-angel Gabriel came to Mary.
From among these angels, Gabriel appeared as a man. It was only Gabriel that spoke to
Mary. In A'l i Imra'n, according to the general principle common in about all
languages (as explained in the American/Russian example above), the speech of their leader
is attributed to all the angels, while in Maryam, the speech is attributed
only to the speaker among them.
A Comment on Mr. Katz's
Explanation Regarding an Apparent Contradiction in the Gospels
Mr Jochen Katz in his referred article has also given
his comments on an apparent contradiction in the Gospels, which is somewhat related in its
nature with that mentioned above from the Qur'an. He writes:
Since the resurrection of Jesus
is the main proof for his claims in regard to his deity, many have tried to disprove this
account by pointing to contradictions in it. Since Muslims deny the crucifixion they
obviously also have to deny the resurrection. One of the favorite items on the list of
Bible contradictions, presented by atheists and Muslims alike, is therefore that in the
Gospel according to Mark, chapter 16 [also Matthew 28], the women encounter at the grave
on Jesus a man [angel] which is read to mean one and only one angel, while
according to Luke, chapter 24 [also John 20], it is explicitely stated that they
encountered two angels.
and then:
Incidentally, this problem in
the Qur'an is much harder to resolve for Muslims than the Biblical one for Christians,
since in the Qur'an Mary addresses this one angel and it is clear she only speaks to one
angel which would be strange if there are three or more around her. In the Bible the
angels are not directly addressed by the women. Hence nothing establishes that there is
only one. Mark and Matthew might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is
the one talking while Luke and John make clear there were actually two of them.
The reader must note the
words: Mark and Matthew might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is
the one talking while Luke and John make clear there were actually two of them. I have
no objection in accepting the explanation given by Mr. Katz, if this explanation is
literally accepted by the words of the four Gospels. I would therefore like all my readers
to have a look at the related portion of the four Gospels and see if the explanation given
by Mr. Katz is acceptable or not. Matthew has narrated the event thus:
After the Sabbath, as the first day
of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And
suddenly there was a great earth quake; for an angel of the Lord descending from heaven,
came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and
his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men.
(28: 1 - 4)
Mark says:
When the Sabbath was over, Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go
and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they
went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone
for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone,
which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a
young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. (16: 1
- 5)
Luke's words are as under:
But on the first day of the week, at
early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found
the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they did not find the body.
While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside
them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to
them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? (24: 1 - 5)
John's narration follows:
Early on the first day of the week,
while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been
removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one
whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we
do not know where they have laid him.” Then Peter and the other disciple set out and
went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter
and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying
there, but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him and went into the tomb. He
saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying
with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who
reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not
understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to
their homes. But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look
into the tomb and saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying,
one at the head and the other at the feet. (20: 1 - 13)
The reader is requested to have a close look at these
excerpts from the four Gospels3 and see for
himself if the explanation given by Mr. Katz (Mark and Matthew
might have only mentioned the one who is prominent and who is the one talking while Luke
and John make clear there were actually two of them) is acceptable or not.
My reservations in accepting
the explanation given by Mr. Katz are:
- What are the words used by Mark
and Matthew that allow this explanation to be acceptable? If Mark and Matthew had really
intended to imply the prominent angel then, at least the word “angel”
should have been preceded by a definite article rather than the indefinite one. It should
then have read: the angel, rather than: an angel. If the
readers would notice the words of the Qur'an, they shall see that the Qur'an has clearly
distinguished between the plural and the singular entities. It has used angels in one
place and “ru'hana” (our spirit) in the other. Thus, the explanation
given by Mr. Katz can be acceptable for the Qur'an but not for the referred part of the
Gospels. - Mr. Katz also says that Mark and Matthew have only
mentioned the angel that is talking, while the words in Luke: “but
the men said to them…” do not allow us to accept this explanation
either.
Mr. Katz has also given an example to clarify his
point of view. He writes:
After meeting the President and
[the] Vice-President on the street somewhere, I might come home and only say, I saw the
President today. Nothing in such a statement precludes that I also met the second in
command and maybe more people too.
I fully agree with this example. But unfortunately,
this example can be given as an explanation for the words of the Qur'an but not for those
of the Gospels. When someone says: “I saw the President today”, this sentence,
as Mr. Katz has rightly stated, does not negate that the person giving such statement had
seen the Vice President and a crowd of other officials. I would further add that if the
statement given was: “I saw a number of high officials today”, even then it
would not negate that the person had seen the President. But, on the other hand, if some
one says: “I saw an officer of the state today”, and later on says: “I saw
two/three/four officers of the state today” now, at least to me, these statements
seem to be contradictory.
If you look at the words of the Qur'an, they are of
the same nature as: “I saw the President today”, which according to Mr. Katz
does not preclude that the person might have seen a number of other officials too. The
Qur'an at one instance says: “We sent our spirit (the President), and at
another instance, it says: “We sent our angels (a number of other officials). Are
the two statements cotradictory?
On the other hand, the four statements of the Gospels
are of the same nature as: “I saw an officer of the state today”. According to
Matthew: “an angel of the Lord descending from heaven…”
(an officer); according to Mark: “As they entered the tomb, they saw a
young man…” (a gentleman, maybe accepted as “an officer“);
according to Luke: “suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them”
(two gentlemen, may be accepted as “two officers“); according to
John: “and saw two angels in white… “ (two officers). Are
these statements not contradictory?
I request Mr. Katz and all my other readers to have a
look at these statements of the Qur'an and those of the Gospels and give a just judgment
on them. I remind all my friends and brethren that the important thing is not to prove
what we want to believe, but to search for and submit to the truth even if it is
against our personal likings.
Copyright (c) April 1998. All Rights Reserved
with the Author
1- The reason for
keeping the number of visits vague is that the Qur'an is not interested in clarifying it.
The Qur'an wants to concentrate on the real message that it wants to deliver - that Jesus
is not God or His son; that his birth is not much different from that of John; and he or
his mother were no different from the rest of mankind as far as human physical and
emotional feelings are concerned. The only difference is that he and his mother were true
servants of their Lord.
2- The word Al-Ru'h
has been used in the Qur'an for the arch-angel Gabriel.
3- I am sure Mr.
Katz and all others can also see the various differences in the narrations of the
particular event in the four Gospels; I wonder what exactly is a contradiction, and what
is not?