Jochen Katz

Postscript / update / correction : At the time of formulating the above observation, I used the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Only later it became clear that Yusuf Ali actually mistranslates S. 19:17 where the Arabic text does not speak of an angel, but says that "We sent her our spirit". Although Muslims generally assume that this spirit was the angel Gabriel (so that the above formulation is still relevant under this assumption), this identification is actually questionable, see these articles (1, 2). Fact is, the name Gabriel is not mentioned at all in either one of the quranic accounts. However, since the above version received so many Muslim responses and was discussed in the above stated form, I decided to rather add this note instead of changing the above text. The reader is advised to consult the below listed responses which provide detailed discussions on this and other issues related to these two texts in the Qur'an.

Muslim Response by Randy Desmond
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997

There is an assumption that the author of the contradiction makes which I can not verify. That assumption is that 3:42-45 and 19:17-18 are the same occasion. Is it not reasonable that Mary (may God be pleased with her) was informed of what was to happen more than once? Keep in mind assumptions which do not contradict the Qur'an and allow an uncontradictory solution, like the one I am entertaining with respect to the number of times Mary was informed angelic beings, may not be the actual truth (and I am not saying that Mary was told this information once, twice, or many times), but nevertheless those assumptions which illustrate that a contradiction has not been proven are just as valid as assumptions which lead to contradictions. Therefore, the contradiction has not been proven at all, and with that I leave it with the following: God knows best how many times Mary was told this information and who told her.

So according to the criteria of proving a contradiction, the contradiction author's argument fails. If the reader is wondering what the criteria of proof of contradiction is, see my response to this web site's page on "Heavens or Earth, Which was created first?" In that response I detail how to determine whether or not a proposed contradiction has proven its point.

We observe that even the responding party is uncomfortable with his own proposed solution. I don't have much more to add. I don't have to prove contradictions in the Qur'an. I leave it to the reader to judge how credible the suggestion of multiple announcements is. After all, this would indicate the lack of belief on the part of Mary to the first announcement. Read the whole passage and observe that both times Mary reacts to the announcement of the son with the same question of "How can this be, having never been with a man". Can we really believe she would have forgotten such a momentous encounter with angelic messenger(s) and the explanation given then to the very same question?

Misha'al Al-Kadhi gave another response which was incredibly verbose (more than a dozen pages) ... maybe in the hope that the reader would be so overawed by his "scholarship" just because of the mere volume of it? Maybe he hoped nobody would read to the end and realize the crucial flaws in his argument? Anyway, I tortured myself and an Arab brother, Bassam Khoury, to study it, and here is the essence of it as well as the rebuttal. Al-Kadhi's full argument is available at this site. Mr. Al-Kadhi's arguments are indented.

This is why to this day we find the Queen of England, French dignitaries, and most Arab leaders referring to themselves, or referred to by others in the plural sense.

This is wrong already in English or French and is just as wrong in Arabic. Because in Arabic when using the "royal we" it takes a plural *verb*, but never a plural *noun*. That is exactly as in English, and it was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who announced the birth of a granddaughter by saying: "We are a grandmother," but she did not and could NEVER say "We are grandmothers". And it is the same in Arabic. Only the verb can be plural, not the noun. In the above text the noun is plural: "angels".

A similar case to the above is the one presented by our current author. The first three verses (Aal-Umran(3):42-45) do indeed use the word "angels." However, this plural form of the word is used to describe only one angel, specifically, angel Gabriel. Such constructs are used in the Arabic language as a symbol of dignity and respect for that person. This is a popular Arabic grammatical construct called "al-majaz al-mursal" which falls under the subheading of Arabic grammar titled "Balaghah" ...

Wrong again because:

"Al majaz al mursal" means "A word used in a different way than its original like saying "the fire has eaten the wood" the word "eaten" here is not in the normal use as eating is for human and animals but not for fire. There are two kinds of Majaz:

1- majaz aqli `logical metaphor'
2- majaz lughawi `lingustic metaphor'

(Quote translated from "Student reference in the Arabic language" by Raajee al Asmar, Beirut 1995 pg 381)

"Majaz mursal" is a type of the latter. "If there is no similarity between the new word and the referent (original word), it's called "majaz mursal". An example would be: I have drunk one glass". There is no similarity between the glass and what is in it; we drink what is in it not the glass itself (example also found in the above quoted text).

I cannot see how the above falls under this heading. Continuing where we left off:

... and which we can not get into here since it requires a basic knowledge of the Arabic language and its grammar. Suffice it to say that there are at least two quick clues to this matter which even non-Arabic speaking people can appreciate. The first one is that in the first set of verses, verses 46-48 say: "The angels said... Mary said... HE replied" meaning that we are speaking about an angel designated as "he" and not "they," in the same very verses themselves.

In the orginal Arabic text of the Qur'an it is clear that the "He" refers to God. At-Tabari in his comment on this verse 3:47 says: "Allah said to her "Even so; Allah createth what he willeth"

But even if it should refer to one angel here (against the witness of at-Tabari), then it only means that his particular answer to Mary's question was spoken by only one angel, and the others might have been silent. Plural nouns still can't be interpreted to be singular.

Secondly, a similar construct can be found elsewhere in the Qur'an which can hopefully clarify this construct to non-Arabic speakers. For example, in Al-Nahi(16):120 we read: "Verily Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah and he was not of the polytheists."

We notice here that prophet Abraham (pbuh) is described as a "nation." Does this mean that he is literally a few hundred thousand people? No. This is an Qur'anic term of exaltation and elevation for Abraham above all humans such that he is higher in regard and reward with God than an entire nation of mortals. In the same manner, the status of the angel Gabriel with God is of a similar stature among the angels. There are many other similar constructs in the Arabic language, many of which are applied to angel Gabriel in more than one location in the Qur'an to set him apart from all other angels....

I found this a lot these days: Muslims use Yusuf Ali's translation when they like what he says and they ignore it when they don't like it.

If we look at Ali's translation of this verse, we see that he says: Sura 16:120 - "Abraham was indeed a model..." Jalal as-Suyuti in his comment on this verse says: "Umma" - which Al Kadhi translates as nation - means "Imaman", i.e. a model/example/leader:

Ibn Abbas interprets similarly:

Moreover, the Quran may be using the word "Umma" in reference to Abraham being the federal head of a community of believers. The plural may be including the multitudes of believers from the descendants of Abraham, with Abraham standing in their place as their corporate head. This concept is not foreign to either the Holy Bible or the Quran since both books teach the concepts of federal headship and corporate solidarity, just as the following texts demonstrate:

Yet such a usage provides no support for al-Kadhi's argument, since "Umma" is being used for Abraham and his seed whereas "angels", according to al-Kadhi, refers to Gabriel alone.

It is also possible that Sura 16:120 contains a grammatical error, that the author wrongly used a plural for a singular subject. That this is a plausible interpretation can be readily seen from the fact that the Quran contains dozens of grammatical errors, see this section.

Whatever the case maybe, Sura 16:120 does not support al-Kadhi's position.

Al-Kadhi continues:

Getting back to our current example, we find that in both of the quoted verses angel Gabriel is referred to through popular Arabic constructs of respect and exaltation. In the first it is demonstrated in the use of the plural construct, in the second it is demonstrated in the use of his official title of "Holy Spirit," where we see that the verse says that "We (God) sent unto her (Mary) Our Spirit (Gabriel)..."

So why doesn't the Qur'an say then: "We sent unto her our spirits"? Since elsewhere the singular word malaak (angel) becomes malaa'ika (angels)? The one with the highest honor among the angels is left in the singular?

Furthermore, it does only say "Spirit" and not "Holy Spirit".

Even in English is not too much of a stretch to understand the intent. If a president has a highly esteemed ambassador whom he has entrusted with a significant task, and this president wishes to bestow upon this ambassador and his message an air of importance, then he would not say "I have sent some guy...." or "I have sent one of my people.." since this would reflect badly on that ambassador as someone who is not even worthy to remember his name or his service. It would also reflect badly on the message itself since it would imply that the message was of such little importance that it was entrusted to someone of such little merit. Rather, one way to convey an air of dignity and importance to the messenger as well as the message would be to mention the man's office, such as to say "I sent my ambassador.." Another way would be to directly exalt him such as saying "I sent my most trusted and faithful aid..." And finally, in Arabic one could use the plural form such as to say "I sent THEM (him).."

No, we do NOT say "I sent THEM (him).." in Arabic. I wish he could find for me one single example of someone saying "we sent our ambassadors" when he means one man. This is a propaganda trick and plain false. "Bring your proof if you are truthful," is the charge of the Qur'an to you.

I have heard statements made by Arab leaders or even individuals using the pronoun "WE" for just themselves.

I have heard individuals addressing leaders, religious people, or even government employees, with "YOU" (in the plural form, like "Sie" in German or "Vouz" in French), or with words like "your majesty" or "excellency" in the plural form. But I never heard anybody using the third person pronoun in the plural form even if the third person was a king or president.

Arabs may address a president or anybody by the word "Hadratoukom", "Seyadatoukom", Jalalatoukom" ... but when mentioning those people as a third person, it is never said, "Hadratouhom, "Seyadatouhom", or Jalalatouhom", but in the singular third person form, i.e. "Hadratouhou", "Seyadatouhou" or "Jalalatouhou", regardless of the importance of that third person.

The use of the plural form when talking about the angel in 3:42 & 45 does not make any sense unless the Qur'an really means that there were more than one angel speaking with Mary. The Verse 47 in Sura 3 uses the verb "Qala" in the singular form refering to one angel.

And my Arab friend who wrote up this rebuttal, concludes:

Finally: it is *our* opinion that his argument does not hold water (or should that be *their* argument, or arguments, doesn't or don't hold water or waters) ??

My conclusion: The difficulty remains. I still think it is relatively weak in comparison to some of the others on this site, but it is nevertheless real.

The response by Mr. Al-Kadhi though is worth pondering well since it shows what amount of false propaganda some people are ready to produce in order to defend the indefensible and to deceive those whom they think cannot see through their schemes. The rebuttal fraud was worse then the difficulty we started out with. It certainly would have deserved an entry in the "Dictionary of Misinformation" by Tom Burnam, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1975.

Muslim Response by Mahmoud Hussein
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998

Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:09:27 +1000
From: COMP1001 Student <z1234567@student.unsw.edu.au>
Organization: School of Computer Science, UNSW
To: jkatz@math.gatech.edu
Subject: Errors on your web page

I am a muslim living in Sydney, Australia, my name and contact address
are listed below. I am writing to you with reference to your web page
titled "Difficulties in the Qur'an"
( http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ ). I am some what concerned
that even after I have written to you explaining your errors, that they
will remain on the page. So I have picked one such error ( under
internal contradictions (2), referring to the amount of angels that
visited Mary {may God be pleased with her}), after explaining the error
I would prefer a response and for the site to be corrected. I will then,
time permitting, go through as many as your claims as possible and
debunk them one by one. I would appreciate that this letter be posted in
it's entirety on the site, and just the correction.

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Your claim was that ( under the heading of  "how many angels were
talking to Mary") in one section of the Qurán {3:42-45} it was said that
several angels visited Mary ( may God be pleased with her ), then in
another section {19:17-21} it quoted that only one angel visited her. In
your haste, and excitement in thinking that you have found an error, you
let the simple response to this claim jump up and fly over your head.
This response is also given by M. A. Yusef in his commentary associated
with verse { 19:17-21}. The answer is basically this; that the Qurán is
referring to two separate situations.

When the glad tidings of the birth of a son was first revealed to her,
by several angels, she was confused as in her words "no man has touched
me"{3:42-45}. She then asked her Lord for clarification, in reply he
sends one angel to answer her query{19:17-21}. The angel again gives her
the glad tidings of a son named Jesus, who will be a mightier prophet
and messenger of God, and tells Mary (  may God be pleased with her )
even though no man had touched her that when God decrees a matter, "He
but says 'be' and it is".

So as you can see the error you claim you found in the Qurán, is but
your error; as are all the errors you claim on your site. So if you want
me to go through as many errors as one simple soul is able to I will, or
if you have a special request i.e. request some in particular errors
which you think are infallible; I will also sort out those for you. All
you have to do is to respond to this letter, and display it in full on
the web-site I am referring to.

And if you do not, you know that in your heart you are propagating lies,
and damned lies at that! And you should always remember ( even as a
Christian ) we believe in a day in which all falsehood and truth is
delta with by God, the All Knowing. And even if you able to hide your
lies now, on that day you will be questioned why you lied, claiming
truth as falsehood, and you shall get the punishment due to you.......
unless you repent. This is of course the Day of Judgement.

Mahmoud Hussein.
University of New South Wales.
e-mail address:- 2231338@sigma.maths.unsw.edu.au. If this doesn't work
try putting a "u" infront of the number; or h3096169@bohm.anu.edu.au.

Comment: What is the purpose of the accusations and threats? Can we not talk about this like civilized people? Have you not clearly seen that I offer to display or link to any answer? I already had three other answers here. Sure I will add yours. Even when you insult me. It is displayed exactly as received.

Muslim Response by Ahmad AL-MAJED
Date: 16 may 1999

Assuming that it was one occasion is not correct at all. Thus, if u have two men talking to you today and only one man the next day is logical. Furthermore, the two subjects were completely different in the two different versus.I do not understand why u r choosing this as a contradiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The Learner" (Moiz Amjad) responds in a lengthy article at his own website Understanding Islam. We provide detailed rebuttals to both parts of his response: (1) The Annunciation Accounts of the Quran, (2) The Resurrection Accounts of the Bible.

Contradictions in the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page