|
In Defense of Mary
the Virgin
 |
A
Picture
of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the oldest
standing churches in the world, which was built to commemorate
the birthplace of Jesus Christ
(pbuh).
|
In their recent books entitled
Mary: The Mother of Jesus and Mary: A Dogmatic Journey,
two “Catholic” writers, the journalist Jacques Duquesne and the
theologian Dominique Cerbelaud, display an overt disbelief in the
virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ. Mr. Duquesne argues
that it is a belief that is “not compatible with science.” Mr.
Cerbelaud asserts that the faith in the virgin birth came about “for
reasons that spring from collective psychology.”
I believe both arguments to be
inconsistent and based on a flawed understanding of science. Before
explaining these, however, let me elaborate on why the virgin birth
matters for me—since some non-Muslims might wonder why a Muslim
cares about this controversy at all.
The Virgin Birth According to the
Qur’an
As a Muslim, I am a passionate
defender of the virgin birth of Christ, and all Muslims should be
so. Why? Because this is one of the very important themes in the
Qur’an.
The Qur’an tells a great deal about
the birth, works, and miracles of Jesus (`Isa in Arabic). His story
starts with the angels’ call to Mary (Maryam in Arabic) by which
they declare the miracle of God—a son without a father. Mary is
surprised:
[She
said, “My Lord! How can I have a son when no man has ever
touched me?” He said, “It will be so. God creates whatever He
wills. When He decides on something, He just says to it, ‘Be!’
and it is.”]
(Aal `Imran 3:47)
There are many passages in the Qur’an
in which Mary is highly praised. We read that angels said to her, [“Maryam,
God has chosen you and purified you. He has chosen you over all
other women”] (Aal `Imran 3:42).
In another surah, An-Nisaa’ 4:156,
those who propose [a monstrous slander against
Maryam] are cursed.
Actually, there is quite a long surah in the Muslim Scripture titled
“Maryam” (Mary) in which the nobility of Mary and the virgin birth
is told in detail. In another surah, we read,
[Maryam,
the daughter of `Imran, who guarded her chastity—We breathed Our
Spirit into her and she confirmed the Words of her Lord and His
Book and was one of the devout]
(At-Tahrim 66:12)
These verses make clear that
Mary—along with Jesus himself—is a sacred figure for all Muslims.
Thus, any disrespect, insult, or attack on Mary or Jesus Christ is
directed also toward Islam. We can add Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Joseph, Job, and many other Old Testament figures to the list—they
are all praised in the Qur’an.
I suspect this will be news to some
non-Muslims. But what is stranger still is that it will be news to
some Muslims, too. Unfortunately, we see a lack of passion in the
Islamic world when it comes to the defense of prophets other than
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). He is, of
course, the Prophet of Islam and very dear to us Muslims, but the
Qur’an in Surat An-Nisaa’ 4:152, orders that Muslims should not
[differentiate
between any of [God’s Messengers].]
We Muslims should rediscover that
Qur’anic principle. We should also realize that defense of faith is
not done by slandering or assaulting its critics in barbarity, but
by refuting their arguments in civility. Let me now concentrate on
the latter.
Are Miracles “Unscientific”?
I have said that the arguments put
forward by Jacques Duquesne and Dominique Cerbelaud about the virgin
birth are inconsistent. The reason is that the earliest sources that
tell us about the virgin birth—the Gospels—are also the earliest
sources from which we learn that a woman named Mary actually lived.
Mary is the devout Jewish woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ
without a biological father, according to the Gospels—and from a
Muslim point of view, according to the Qur’an.
One can reject the Gospels, of course,
but how can one then be rightfully called a Christian? If one
proclaims to be a Christian—as Duquesne and Cerbelaud apparently
do—then how can one question the virgin birth? British writer A. N.
Wilson, in his book Jesus, which is “written with a profound
skepticism about Christianity,” points out that, “there is no
logical justification for dividing the infancy narratives of the New
Testament from the rest.”
Not surprisingly, in fact, the doubts
and denials about the virgin birth come not from any internal
evidence in the Gospels—or any historical account, for that
matter—but from an incredulity that derives from its supposed clash
with “science.” This would seem most probably to be the real prime
mover of Duquesne and Cerbelaud. The virgin birth is obviously a
miracle, and they take it for granted that a belief in miracles is
“unscientific.” In fact, this is a common trait among modern
thinkers when faith in any miracle is expressed.
Yet, that is also exactly where they
are wrong. In fact, science doesn’t tell us that miracles can’t
happen. It only tells us that miracles don’t happen now. It shows
that the natural world around us is operating within constant laws
of physics and chemistry. Thanks to these laws, fire always burns,
the dead never arise, and nobody walks on water. However, science
can’t tell us that this was always the case in history nor that this
necessarily will always be so in every instance in the future.
The belief that this was always the
case in history does not come from “science,” but from a philosophy
called naturalism. Naturalism holds that nature is all there is and
there are no supernatural entities, such as God, to have influence
over nature. This philosophic view is a belief, not a testable,
observable fact. Therefore, when people object to the virgin birth
or other miracles told in the Qur’an, they are doing so not because
of science, but because of their faith in naturalism.
The Demise of Naturalism
However, there would seem to be some
very bad news emerging for the naturalists. Science, which they used
to see as their main instrument and ally, has turned against them in
recent decades. The more we learn about the natural world, the more
we come to realize that what might be legitimately termed “miracles”
really happened in the past.
One big nail in the coffin of
naturalism has been the Big Bang theory, which showed that the
universe had a beginning. The discovery of a genesis of the natural
world was a major blow to atheists such as Carl Sagan, who used to
reiterate the naturalist dogma, “The cosmos is all that is or ever
was or ever will be,” as if it were a scientific fact, in his TV
series Cosmos, which was nothing more than atheist
indoctrination.
A second big nail has been the
Anthropic Principle, as scientists call it. This means that
virtually all the constants of the physical world, including the
structure of our galaxy or the Solar System, are constructed in the
best possible way to accommodate human life. This “fine-tuning” of
the universe speaks for a supernatural design and intervention in
the natural world—a more technical definition of what we call a
“miracle.”
Yet a third big nail in naturalism’s
coffin has been the discovery of greater and deeper complexities of
life. These complexities refute the widespread myth that Darwinism
is an adequate explanation of the origin and diversity of life on
earth. That’s why the late Francis Crick, an atheist and
co-discoverer of DNA, had to use the “M-word” when he declared, “the
origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many
are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to
get it going.”
The more we learn about the natural
world, the more naturalism looks incredible and miracles look
factual. The most recent and spectacular testimony to this fact has
been the conversion of arch-atheist Anthony Flew to theism. At age
81, after decades of fierce atheism, Anthony Flew has concluded,
“some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the
universe.” He added, “A super-intelligence is the only good
explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.”
Christians, Be Christians!
In a world where dedicated atheists
come to realize the existence of “a super-intelligence” that shaped
the natural world, it is surprising to see “Christians” who deny
that the “super-intelligence” in question has intervened in history.
Here, then, we have mainly a
theological problem, but also a practical one. As a Muslim, I see
Christianity as my ally in the effort to redeem this misguided
world—misguided by many forms of materialism, hedonism, lust, and
arrogance. But I want to see my allies firm in their faith. And, of
course, many of them are. But for those who are not, may I point out
what the Qur’an says about Christians:
[The
people of the Gospel should judge by what God sent down in it.
Those who do not judge by what God has sent down, such people
are deviators/]
(Al-Ma’idah 5:47)
The denial of the virgin birth and
other miracles is such a deviation. We Muslims have to—and
definitely will—stand against it.
*Mustafa Akyol
is a political scientist, journalist, and freelance writer from
Istanbul, Turkey. He has lectured on religion, philosophy, and
science in several universities in the United States and the United
Kingdom. He is director of the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul. The writer
can be reached at: akyolmst@superonline.com.
|
