Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER 3 (Surah Āl ‘Imrān), VERSES 79 - 80

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّـهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِّي مِن دُونِ اللَّـهِ وَلَـٰكِن كُونُوا رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ ﴿٧٩﴾ وَلَا يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَن تَتَّخِذُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ أَرْبَابًاۗ أَيَأْمُرُكُم بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ ﴿٨٠﴾

It is not meet for a man that Allāh should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men: ‘‘Be my servants rather than Allāh’s;’’ but rather (he would say): ‘‘Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)’’ (79). Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)? (80).

* * * * *

COMMENTARY

The verses come after those related to the affairs of ‘Īsā (a.s.); it implies that it is the second stage of the argument exonerating ‘Īsā from the responsibility of what the Christians believe about him. We may summarize the whole argument as follows:

‘Īsā (a.s.) was not as you think about him. Neither was he Lord nor had he claimed Lordship for himself. (1) He was not Lord, because he was a mortal creature; was conceived in his mother’s womb who gave birth to him and brought him up in a cradle. Of course, just like Adam (a.s.), he had no father, thus his likeness was with Allāh as the likeness of Adam. (2) Nor had he claimed to be Lord, because he was a prophet, and was given the Book, the Judgment and Prophethood; and a prophet, having that status, cannot transgress the limit of servitude, nor can he divest himself of submission to Allāh.

How can a prophet tell people: Take me as your Lord, be my servants rather than Allāh’s? Or, how can he allow it for any other creature of Allāh? A prophet would never enjoin men to take the angels or the prophets for lords. He would not give to any servant of Allāh more than his due, nor would he deny prophethood of any prophet of Allāh divesting him of his status and dignity.

QUR’ĀN: It is not meet for a man that Allāh should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men: ‘‘Be my servants rather than Allāh’s’’: ‘‘al-Bashar’’ (اَلْبَشَرُ = man) is synonymous with ‘‘al-insān’’ (اَلْاِنْسَانُ ); it is used for singular as well as plural; one man is al-bashar and also a group of men is al-bashar.and also a group of men is al-bashar.

Mā kāna li basharin (مَا كانَ لِبَشَرٍ = it is not meet for a man); li (لِ ) in li-basharin (لِبَشَرٍ ) denotes ownership; that is, it does not belong to him; it is not meet for him; he has no right to it. The same expression has been used in some other places; for example, It does not beseem us that we should talk of it (24:16); And it is not attributable to a prophet that he should act unfaithfully (3:161).

The clause, ‘‘that Allāh should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood’’, is the subject of kāna (كانَ = was; is). It prepares the ground for the next statement; ‘‘then he should say to men; ‘Be my servants rather than Allāh’s.’ ’’ Apparently, the sentence could be shortened by omitting the introductory clause, ‘‘that Allāh should give him the Book ...’’; yet, it was inserted to give a new connotation to the phrase, ‘‘It is not meet for a man’’. Let us see what happens if the sentence is rewritten, omitting the introductory clause; then the verse would run as follows: It is not meet for a man that he should say to men. The meaning then would be as follows: He was not given that right, although possibly he could say so if he transgressed the limit and became insolent. But there is no room for such inference in the sentence as it now stands. The verse in the present form means as follows: When Allāh gives a man knowledge and gnosis of reality, and brings him up with Divine Care, that man can never transgress the boundary of servitude; nor does he feel free to interfere in what does not belong to him, or to dispose what he has no right to; as Allāh describes the declaration of ‘Īsā (a.s.), in the verse: And when Allāh will say: ‘‘O ‘Īsā son of Maryam! did you say to men, ‘take me and my mother for two gods besides Allāh’ ’’, he will say: ‘‘Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say) ’’ (5:116).

The verse says, ‘‘that Allāh should give him ...’’, instead of saying: a man whom Allāh gave the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood. The reason for it is clear from the above explanation. The latter wording points only to the basic legislative prohibition of such transgression. On the other hand, the present construction, ‘‘that Allāh should give him ....’’, shows that such behaviour is definitely impossible. The Divine Guidance and upbringing cannot fail to attain its goal, as Allāh says: These are they whom We gave the Book and the Judgment and the Prophethood, therefore if these (i.e., the tribesmen of the Messenger of Allāh, s.a.w.a.) disbelieve in it, We have (already) entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it (6:89).

In short, the verse says that it is not possible for a man to join these Divine Favours with calling the men to his own worship. It is not possible when he is given a Book, the Judgment and Prophethood that he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allāh’s. In this context the verse resembles to a certain extent the verses: The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allāh, nor do the angels who are near to Him and as for those who disdain and are proud, He will chastise them with a painful chastisement. And they shall not find for themselves besides Allāh a guardian or a helper (4:172 - 173). The implication is that the Messiah and the angels who are near to Allāh are too high in prestige and too great in status to disdain the worship of Allāh; because disdaining His worship brings painful chastisement on the culprit; and far be it from Allāh to chastise His honoured prophets or the near angels.

Objection: The verse uses the word, thumma (ثُمَّ = then) in the phrase, ‘‘then he should say to men’’; this conjunctive denotes some delay; and the delay does not conform with the joining you have mentioned.

Reply: What we have said about joining the Divine Favours with calling men to disbelief gives the gist of the matter. Togatherness and combination can happen with simultaneous things as well as with two things appearing consecutively - that too is a sort of combination.

‘‘Be my servants rather than Allāh’s’’: al-‘Ibād (اَلْعِبَادُ ) like al-‘abīd (اَلْعَبِيْدُ ) is plural of al-‘abd (اَلْعَبْدُ = slave; servant); the difference between the two plurals is in usage; al-‘ibād is mostly used in relation to Allāh, for example, ‘ibādu’llāh (عِبَادُ اللّهِ = slaves/servants of Allāh); while al ‘abīd is generally used when related to man; they say, ‘abīdu ’n-nās (عَبِيْدُ النَّاسِ = slaves/servants of men), and not ‘ibādu ’n-nās (عِبَادُ النَّاسِ )

The proviso, ‘‘rather than Allāh’s’’, has been added after the words, ‘‘my servants’’, as a matter of necessity. Allāh does not accept any worship unless it is purely for His own person. Allāh says: Now, surely, sincere religion (obedience) is for Allāh (alone); and (as for) those who take guardians besides Him, (saying), ‘‘We do not worship them save that they may make us nearer to Allāh’’, surely Allāh will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allāh does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful (39:3). Thus, Allāh has rejected outright the worship of those who join worship of others with His worship, even if the others are worshipped merely as interceders and intermediaries, and only with intention of reaching near Allāh through them.

Moreover, the reality of worship does not come into existence until some independence is admitted for the worshipped even in polytheism.

The partner, per se, has some independence; while in reality it is only to Allāh that absolute Lordship and Godhead belongs. Therefore, His Lordship cannot be complete, nor can His worship be correct except with negation of independence from every other thing in every possible way.

The worship of someone else is worship of other than Allāh, even if Allāh is worshipped with him.

QUR’ĀN: but rather (he would say): ‘‘Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)’’: ‘‘ar-Rabbānī’’ (اَلرَّبَّانِيُّ = translated here as worshippers of the Lord) is derived from ar-Rabb (اَلرَّبُّ = the Lord), to which ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘n’’ (اَنْ ) have been added for augmentation of meaning; as for example, they use: al-lihyānī (اَللِّحْيِانِيُّ ) for one having a luxuriant beard. Thus ar-rabbānī means the one having special relationship with the Lord, and spending his life in His servitude and worship. Bi (بِ ) in bi-mā (بِمَا ) is causative, and means ‘‘because’’; while mā (مَا ) is for al-masdar (اَلْمَصْدَرُ ) and has changed the past tenses into infinitive verbs; that is why we have translated it in the following way: ‘‘but rather (he would say): ‘Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves) ’ ’’

ad-Dirāsah (اَلدِّرَاسَةُ = to study) is more specific than at-ta‘allum (اَلتَّعَلُّمُ = to learn; to study), as the former is generally used for studying from book by reading and reciting. ar-Rāghib says: ‘‘Darasa ’d-dār (دَرَسَ الدَّارُ = vestiges of the house remained); it implies that the house itself was obliterated; and for this reason ad-durūs (اَلدُّرُوْسُ ) is translated as obliteration. Likewise, darasa ’l-kitāb (دَرَسَ الْكِتَابُ ) (or, darasa ’l-‘ilm =دَرَسَ الْعِلْمُ ) means, he got trace of book (or, knowledge) memorizing it; he grasped its meaning. As it is attained by regular recitation, such recitation is called memorization. Allāh says: and they have read what is in it (7:169); because of your teaching the Book and reading; And We have not given them any books which they read (44:44).’’

The theme is that a man having such a high status will call you only to attainment of faith and to believe in the teachings of the Book which you learn and teach - the Book that contains the fundamental Divine Knowledge; he will enjoin you to acquire noble character and good traits found in the Book; and to practise and do good deeds to which you call the people. He will do so, in order that you attach yourselves exclusively to your Lord, and thus become divine scholars.

Bi-mā kuntum (بِمَاكُنْتُمْ = lit., because you were), being a past tense, shows that the action had already taken place; that the audience was already teaching and reading the Book. It gives a hint that, possibly, it is an allusion to the Christians, who said that ‘Īsā had told them that he was the son of God and His Word (with all the differences in the meaning of sonship). The fact is that the Children of Israel had been given a revealed Book which they taught and read; then they differed in it - a difference that was accompanied by textual changes and alterations. ‘Īsā (a.s.) was sent only to explain to them a part of what they differed in and to allow them part of that which was forbidden them; in short, to call them to fulfil their obligations concerning the learning and teaching - that they should attach themselves exclusively to their Lord in reading and teaching His Book.

Although the verse may somehow be applied to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) - because his mission covered the People of the Book too, who used to teach and read the Book of Allāh - but ‘Īsā (a.s.) was before the Prophet and the verse applies to him in a more befitting manner; also because he was sent exclusively to the Children of Israel, unlike the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.).

So far as other ulu ’l-‘azm prophets (who came with a Book), i.e., Nūh, Ibrāhīm and Mūsā are concerned, the verse obviously cannot be applied to them.

QUR’ĀN: Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lord: The verb ‘‘aw ya’murakum’’ (اَوْيَأْمُرَكمْ = or that he should enjoin you), because of the vowel ‘‘a’’ after ya’mur (according to the well-known and common recital), is in conjunction with ‘‘he should say’’.

A group of the People of the Book had taken the angels for lords. For instance, the Sabaeans worshipped the angels and attributed that custom to the authority of religion. Likewise the Arabs, while claiming to follow the religion of Ibrāhīm (a.s.), said that the angels were Allāh’s daughters.

As for taking the prophets for lords, the Jews, for instance, said that ‘Uzayr was the son of Allāh - as the Qur’ān quotes them - although Mūsā (a.s.) had not allowed it to them, nor was there in the Torah anything other than monotheism. Had Mūsā (a.s.) allowed it to them he would be enjoining it - far be it from him!

The style of the verse, ‘‘then he should say to men: ‘Be my servants rather than Allāh’s’ ’’, differs in two ways from that of the next verse, ‘‘Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords’’: (1) The subject matter in the former is worship of other than Allāh, and in the latter it is taking them for lords. (2) The enjoined people in the former are described in third person, ‘‘men’’, while the latter addresses them directly in second person. Let us look at both changes:

First: The former verse adversely alludes to the Christians concerning their worship of ‘Īsā. As is known, they believe in his godhead openly, saying that he had invited them to his own worship. Thus they have clearly ascribed this call to ‘Īsā that he said to them: ‘Be my servants’.

On the other hand, taking the angels and the prophets for lords (in the meaning used in the case of others than ‘Īsā) is opposed to the belief of monotheism only by implication, not clearly. That is why the latter verse uses the word, ‘‘lords’’, instead of gods.

Second: Both expressions (‘Be my servants’; that he should enjoin you) deal with a subject which was relevant to the audience of these verses, that is, the People of the Book and the Arabs. The first verse has used the word, ‘‘should say’’; and ‘‘saying’’ implies a face to face talk. But the people present at the time of the Prophet were not present at the material time, that is, when ‘Īsā was supposed to say it. It is for this reason that the verse says, ‘‘he should say to men’’, instead of saying, he should say to you. On the other hand, the second verse uses the word ‘‘enjoin’’; enjoining does not necessarily require face to face talk; it may be done even when the enjoined one is absent. An order given to, or a matter connected with, the ancestors is applied to the later generations if the latter identify themselves with the former. As for ‘‘saying’’ - because it employs transmission of voice - it denotes oral conversation and presence of the audience (except when it is used simply in the meaning of instruction).

It is therefore evident that basically these verses require second person plurals (as in, or that he should enjoin you ...); but exception was made in the first verse owing to special reasons.

QUR’ĀN: What! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)?: Apparently, the question is directed to all who followed a prophet like the People of the Book, or claimed to do so like the Arabs of the days of Ignorance who believed that they were on the religion of Ibrāhīm. The talk is based on a hypothetical proposition and the meaning is as follows: If it is true that you do follow this man who was given the Book, the Judgment and Prophethood, then you have already submitted to Allāh, acquiring the characteristics of Islam; then how will it be possible for that prophet to enjoin you with disbelief, diverting you from the very path to which he had guided you by the order of Allāh?

It is clear from the above explanation that in this verse, Islam refers to the religion of monotheism; the religion which Allāh sent all the prophets with. This view is supported by other verses preceding and following this verse, in which the word, ‘‘Islam’’, has been used in this very meaning: Surely the religion with Allāh is Islam (3:19); Is it then other than Allāh’s religion that they seek (to follow) And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers (3:83 - 85).

An exegete has said that the two verses under discussion refer to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.). His view is based on a tradition (quoted earlier) describing the circumstances of its revelation which says that Abū Rāfi‘ al-Qurazī and a Najrānite Christian said to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.): ‘‘Do you want us to worship you? O Muhammad!’’

Then Allāh revealed: ‘It is not meet for a man that Allāh should give him after you are Muslims?’ Then the said exegete has argued by the last phrase, ‘after you are Muslims’; ‘‘because Islam is the religion brought by Muhammad (s.a.w.a.).’’

COMMENT: He has confused the Islam of Qur’ānic terminology (the religion of monotheism which was preached by all the prophets) with the Islam of the Muslims’ terminology - a term which came into use after the time of revelation. (We have explained it earlier).

CONCLUSION (Having Seven Chapters)

1. The Story of ‘Īsā and his Mother in the Qur’ān

Maryam, daughter of ‘Imrān, was the mother of the Messiah. When her mother was pregnant with her, she made a vow that she would release what was in her womb to be devoted to the service of the Temple. She believed that she was pregnant with a male child; but when she brought it forth and came to know that it was a female, she was disappointed and dejected. Then she named her Maryam, that is, servant. Her father, ‘Imrān, had died before she was born; so the mother brought her to the Temple for handing her over to the priests - Zakariyyā was one of them. They contended one with another to get the privilege of her custody; then they agreed to decide it by lot, in which Zakariyyā’s name was drawn; and he became her guardian. When she reached the age of puberty, Zakariyyā made for her a partition to protect her from men’s eyes. She used to worship Allāh therein and nobody entered that sanctuary except Zakariyyā. Whenever Zakariyyā entered the sanctuary to see her, he found with her food. He said: ‘‘O Maryam! whence comes this to you?’ She said: ‘‘It is from Allāh, and surely Allāh gives sustenance to whom He pleases, without measure.’’

Maryam was a truthful woman, and was sinless by Allāh’s protection; purified, chosen and spoken to; the angels spoke to her and purified her.

She was obedient to the Lord and a sign of Allāh for the worlds. Vide 3:35 - 44; 19:16; 21:91; 66:12.

Then Allāh sent to her His Spirit when she had hidden herself behind a curtain, and he appeared to her as a well-made man. He said to her that he was a messenger of her Lord so that he should give her, by permission of Allāh, a pure boy without a father. He also gave her good news of the manifest miracles which were to happen on the hand of her son; and informed her that Allāh would surely strengthen him by the Holy Spirit, and would teach him the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah and the Injīl. He also told her that her son would be a messenger to the Children of Israel and would have clear signs. After informing her of the boy’s status and story, he breathed into her the Spirit and she became pregnant with ‘Īsā (a.s.), as a woman conceives her child. Vide 3:33 - 50.

Then she withdrew herself with him to a remote place. And the throes of childbirth compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm-tree. She said: ‘‘Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten!’’ Then (the child) called out to her from beneath her: ‘‘Grieve not; surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you: And shake towards you the trunk of the palm-tree, it will drop on you fresh ripe dates: So eat and drink and refresh the eye. Then if you see any man, say: ‘Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficient God, so I shall not speak to any man today.’ ’’ And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). Vide 19:20 - 27. His conception, birth, talk and all related affairs were similar to those of other men.

When her people saw her in such a condition, they were enraged, and blamed and taunted her - as was natural in case of an unmarried woman conceiving and bringing forth a child. They said: ‘‘O Maryam, surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Hārūn! your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother an unchaste woman.’’ But she pointed to him. They said: ‘‘How should we speak to one who is a child in the cradle?’’ He said: ‘‘Surely I am a servant of Allāh; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet: And he has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and zakāt so long as I live: And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed: And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.’’ Vide 19:27 - 33.

This talk of ‘Īsā (a.s.) was a sort of prologue which pointed to his future mission - that he would rise against oppression and injustice, revive and reform the sharī‘ah of Mūsā (a.s.), renovate what was obliterated from the revealed knowledge and make clear to them what they had differed in.

‘Īsā (a.s.) grew up and became a young man. He and his mother used to eat and drink in normal way with all the necessary concomitants and accidents of human life upto the end.

Then ‘Īsā (a.s.) was made a messenger to the Children of Israel. He stood up calling them to the religion of monotheism and told them: ‘‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I create for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird, with Allāh’s permission, and I heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead to life, with Allāh’s permission, and I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Most surely there is a sign in this for you. Surely Allāh is my Lord and your Lord, therefore, worship Him only.’’

He called them to his new sharī‘ah, which verified the Law of Mūsā (a.s.); but he abrogated some parts of it, allowing them somethings which were forbidden in the Torah as a punishment to the Jews. ‘Īsā (a.s.) used to say: ‘‘Surely I have come to you with wisdom, so that I may make clear to you a part of what you differ in. O Children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allāh to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.’’

He showed the miracles which he had mentioned, e.g., creation of bird, raising the dead to life, healing the blind and leper, and giving the news of the unseen - all by Allāh’s permission.

He continued like that calling them to monotheism and his new sharī‘ah until he was convinced that they would not believe in him. Seeing their insolence, enmity and hatred, and the arrogance of their priests and rabbis, he turned away from them and selected his apostles (from the small band that had believed in him) to be his helpers to Allāh.

Then the Jews rose against him with the intention to kill him. But Allāh took him away completely and raised him. The Jews were put in confusion: some thought that they had killed him, others that they had crucified him; but in fact it was made to appear to them like that. Vide 3:45 - 58; 4:157 - 158; 5:110 - 111; 43:63 - 65; 61:6 - 14.

This is in short the story of ‘Īsā (son of Maryam) and his mother as given in the Qur’ān.

2. Position of ‘Īsā Before Allāh and in His Own Eyes

‘Īsā (a.s.) was a servant of Allāh and a prophet (vide 19:30); a messenger to the Children of Israel (vide 3:49); was one of the five ulu ’l-‘azm prophets, bringing a new sharī‘ah and a Book, i.e., Injīl (vide 5:46; 33:7; 42:13); Allāh named him the Messiah, ‘Īsā (vide 3:45); he was the Word of Allāh and a Spirit from Him (vide 4:171); an Imām (vide 33:7); one of the witnesses of deeds (vide 4:159; 5:117); he brought the good news of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) (vide 61:6); was worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter, and one of those who are made near to Allāh (vide 3:45); was one of the chosen progenies (vide 3:33); one of the selected and righteous ones (vide 6:85 - 87); was made blessed wherever he might be, and purified; was a sign to the people, a mercy from Allāh, and dutiful to his mother; greeted himself with peace (vide 19:19 - 33); and was among those whom Allāh taught the Book and the Wisdom (vide 3:48).

These twenty-two characteristics, from the stations of al-wilāyah (اَلْوِلَايَةُ = friendship and guardianship of Allāh), give the gist of the attributes which Allāh has used to praise this honoured prophet and to raise his rank. These may be divided in two categories: (1) The acquired ones, like servitude, righteousness and nearness to Allāh; (2) Those bestowed by Allāh as His special grace. We have explained each characteristic in relevant places of this book according to our understanding. Anyone, wanting more details should look it up in those volumes.

3. What ‘Īsā Said, and What was Said About Him?

The Qur’ān says that ‘Īsā (a.s.) was Allāh’s servant and messenger; and that he did not claim for himself what the Christians ascribe to him, nor did he tell them anything other than conveying the Divine Message.

Allāh says: And when Allāh will say: ‘‘O ‘Īsā son of Maryam! did you say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allāh’ ’’, he will say: ‘‘Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind; surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me (away) completely, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. If Thou shouldst chastise them, then surely they are Thy servants; and if Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise.’’ Allāh will say: ‘‘This is the day when their truth shall benefit the truthful ones’’ (5:116 - 119).

This wonderful reply contains the essence of servitude and shows outstanding manner; it is a mirror of ‘Īsā’s attitude and behaviour towards his Lord; it shows how he looked at himself in relation to his Creator and what he thought of the people and their deeds. He says that he looked at himself just as a servant of his Lord, who had nothing to do other than obeying the Lord; he does not proceed except when directed to, and does not stop unless told to. And he was not ordered except to call people to the worship of Allāh and he did not tell them except what he was enjoined with: That worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord.

And so far as his relationship with his people is concerned he shall be the witness for their deeds, and that is that; it is none of his business what Allāh does with them and about them - whether He forgives them or chastises them.

Question: If so, then how would you justify what you had written in the topic of intercession that ‘Īsā shall be among the intercessors on the Day of Resurrection, he shall intercede and his intercession will be honoured and accepted?

Answer: The Qur’ān says expressly - or almost expressly - that he is an intercessor. Allāh says: And those whom they call upon besides Him have no authority for intercession, but he who bears witness of the truth and they know (43:86); and on the Day of Resurrection he (‘Īsā) shall be a witness against them (4:159); and when I taught you the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Injīl (5:110). And we have already written extensively on the subject of intercession.

This intercession is something quite different from the atonement which the Christians believe in. The theory of atonement invalidates the system of reward and punishment, and consequently negates the absolute sovereignty of Allāh - as we shall explain later on. It is the idea of atonement which the above-mentioned talk of ‘Īsā (a.s.) refutes. But this verse has nothing to do with intercession - it neither confirms it nor rejects it. Had it wanted to confirm it - in spite of its inconsistency25

with context - it should have said: If Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Forgiving, the Merciful. And if it wanted to refute it, it should not have mentioned his being a witness for the people. We shall describe in detail this topic later on, Allāh willing.

Looking at what the people said about ‘Īsā (a.s.), we find that they were divided after him into various sects, and disintegrated to perhaps more than seventy denominations. This number looks at fundamental and major divisions only, because minor differences are too numerous to count.

Nevertheless, the Qur’ān concerns itself only with what they say about ‘Īsā (a.s.) and his mother, because it affects the foundation of monotheism which is the only goal to which the Qur’ān calls and the natural straight religion leads. The Book of Allāh is not concerned with other relatively minor points, e.g., the problem of alteration of the Book and that of atonement.

The beliefs which the Qur’ān ascribes to them (or quotes them) are as follows:

1. and the Christians say: ‘‘The Messiah is the son of Allāh’’ (9:30); And they say: ‘‘The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son’’ (21:26);

2. Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh, is the Messiah, son of Maryam’’ (5:72);

3. Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh is the third of the three’’ (5:73);

4. and say not, Three (4:171).

Apparently these verses contain different phrases, describe different beliefs. (That is why some people26 apply various verses to various sects, for example, the Melkites27 who believe in real sonship; the Nestorians28 who explain descendence and sonship as radiance of light on a transparent body like crystal; and the Jacobites29 who explain it in the terms of change and transformation, that is, the God was transformed into flesh and blood.)

But evidently the Qur’ān does not look at the peculiarities of their diverse sects. It is concerned only with one belief which is common between all of them - that ‘Īsā is the son of God and of one substance with God, with the resulting belief of trinity - although they differ very much in its explanation (which has led to extreme conflicts and discords). That this explanation is correct is supported by the fact that the Qur’ān brings one and the same argument to refute the views of all of them.

It may be explained as follows:

The present Torah and Gospels all together clearly mention the Oneness of Allāh; on the other hand the Gospel clearly mentions the sonship declaring that the Son is the Father and none else.

They do not interpret the postulated sonship in the terms of distinction, honour and excellence, although many verses of the Gospels clearly give this meaning. For example:

‘‘But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’’ (Matt., 5:44 - 48)30

‘‘Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.’’ (Matt., 5:16)

‘‘Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.’’ (Matt., 6:1)

‘‘After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.’’ (Matt., 6:9)

‘‘For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.’’ (Matt., 6:14)

‘‘Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.’’ (Luke, 6:36)

Also he said to Mary Magdalene: ‘‘go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.’’ (John, 20:17)

These and other similar sentences of the Gospels refer to Allāh as the Father of ‘Īsā as well as of others, all in the sense of distinction and honour.

There are some sayings in the Gospels which allude to the union of the Son with the Father. For example:

‘‘These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.’’ (John, 17:1)

Then he went on praying for his disciples and finally said: ‘‘Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gayest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.’’ (John, 17:20 - 23)

However, there are other verses which apparently cannot be explained in the terms of distinction and excellence. For example:

‘‘Thomas saith unto him (i.e., Jesus), Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.’’ (John, 5:11)

‘‘For I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.’’ (John, 8:42)

‘‘I and my Father are one.’’ (John, 10:30)

‘‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing31 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’’ (Matt., 28:19)

‘‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was light of men.’’ (John, 1:1 - 4)

These and similar other statements of the Gospels have led the Christians to the belief of trinity in unity. The belief of trinity is an attempt to reconcile the belief that the Christ is the Son of God with the belief in one God which the Christ himself had taught. For example, Mark, 12:29 quotes him as saying: ‘‘The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.’’

The believers in the trinity say (although it does not impart any intelligible meaning): God is one substance with three Persons. The word Person denotes an attribute with which a thing appears to others; and the attribute is none other than the thing itself. The three Persons are: The Person of existence, the Person of knowledge, i.e. the Word, and the Person of life, i.e. the Spirit.

These three Persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The first is the Person of existence; the second, the Person of knowledge (the Word); and the third, the Person of life. The Son who is the Word and the Person of knowledge descended from his Father (i.e. the Person of existence) accompanied by the Holy Ghost (i.e. the Person of Life) that gives light to all things.

Then they differ among themselves in explanation of this vague statement; and ever-occurring conflicts have divided them to more than seventy sects and denominations. We shall mention some of them to the extent that is necessary in the framework of this book.

Think over the above description; then look at what the Qur’ān ascribes to the Christians, or quotes them as saying: and the Christians say, ‘‘The Messiah is the son of Allāh’’ (9:30); Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh, He is the Messiah, son of Maryam’’ (5:72); Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh is the third (Person) of the three’’ (5:73); and say not, ‘‘three’’; Desist (4:171). Then you will realize that all these statements point to a single idea, i.e. the trinity in unity which is the common factor of all the sects which sprang up in the Christianity (as we have said above).

Why did the Qur’ān concentrate on this common factor? It was because the same objections apply to all their beliefs regarding ‘Īsā (a.s.) - in spite of their diversity and numerousness. The arguments put by the Qur’ān are applicable to all their interpretations with equal force, as will be explained later.

4. Argument of the Qur’ān against the Belief of the Trinity

Coming to the belief of trinity, the Qur’ān refutes it in two ways:

First: The general method, i.e. showing that it is impossible for Allāh to take a son for Himself, no matter whether the presumed son be ‘Īsā or someone else.

Second: The particular method, i.e. describing that ‘Īsā son of Maryam was neither a son of God nor God; that he was but a servant created by Allāh.

First Method: What is the quiddity of sonship and birth? What do these words really mean? A living material thing (like man, animal or vegetable) separates from itself a portion of its own matter, then gradually develops it until it becomes another individual of the same species similar to its parent; the offspring has the same characteristics and traits as the parent body had. An animal separates semen from its body, or a plant removes a seed from itself, then it preserves and grows the semen or seed gradually until it becomes another animal or plant similar to its parent. This is what sonship and birth mean. It is no secret that such a thing is impossible for Allāh:

First: Because it needs a physical material body; and Allāh is far above matter and its concomitants without which matter cannot exist like motion, time, space and other such things.

Second: To Allāh belongs absolute Divinity and Lordship; consequently, He has absolute authority over, and total management of, all things in His hand. Every thing is in need of Him to bring it into existence, and depends on Him for its continuity. It is just impossible to imagine a thing similar to Allāh in ‘‘species’’ - a thing having the identity, attributes and characteristics similar to those of Allāh and independent of Him.

Third: If Allāh could beget or give birth to a son, it would entail graduality of action for Allāh. In other words,He would be governed by the laws of matter and movement; and it is contradiction in term, because whatever takes place by His Will comes into being at once without delay, without graduality.

The above explanations are inferred from the words of Allāh: And they say: ‘‘Allāh has taken to Himself a son.’’ Glory be to Him; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His, all are obedient to Him.

The Originator of the heavens and the earth; and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, ‘‘Be’’, and it is (2:116 - 117).

As we have explained above, the words, Glory be to Him, are a complete proof; the clause, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him, is another proof; and the verse, The Originator of the heavens and the earth; and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, ‘‘Be’’, and it is, is a third proof.32

It is also possible to take the clause, The Originator of the heavens and the earth, as an allegorical expression in which the attribute of the object has been transferred to the subject. In other words, the clause may denote that the heavens and the earth are original in their creation and design; Allāh has created them without any previous model. Therefore, He cannot beget anyone, otherwise it would be a creation on His own model. (After all, the Christians believe that the Son is one with the Father.) In that case this clause would be an independent proof by itself. The Christians generally use the sentence, ‘the Messiah is the Son of God’, in a somewhat allegorical sense, and not in its literal meaning. They expand the meaning of sonship. Probably, it means separation of a thing from another of similar quiddity without physical and material division and without graduality. This interpretation may remove the problems of body, materiality and graduality. Yet, the problem of similarity will remain unsolved.

The problem of similarity may be described thus: Evidently, to believe in God the Father and God the Son is to believe in number, in real plurality, even if we suppose that the Father and the Son are one in ‘‘species’’ or quiddity. A human father and his son are one because both have the same quiddity, both belong to the homosapien species; but they are in fact more than one because they are two individual human beings.

Now, if we suppose that God is one, then all other things (including the Son) would be ‘‘no-God’’; they would be owned by God and dependent on Him; consequently the putative son would not be a God like Him. On the other hand, if we suppose a son similar to God, free of, not dependent on, Him, then it would invalidate and negate the Oneness of God.

This exposition is found in the following words of Allāh: and say not, ‘‘Three’’. Desist, it is better for you; Allāh is only one God; far be it from His glory that He should have a son; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; and Allāh is sufficient for a Protector (4:171).

Second Method: ‘Īsā son of Maryam could not be a son of God sharing Godhead with Him, because he was a human being having all the concomitants of humanity.

The Messiah (a.s.) was conceived by Maryam and grew up in her womb; then she brought him forth as women give birth to their children, and brought him up, as a child is brought up by his mother. He grew up proceeding through normal stages: from infancy to childhood, from youth to the middle age. All this time, his condition was like any other normal human being in march of life. He was governed by all normal accidents and conditions undergone by other men. He was hungry and satiated; felt joy and sorrow; was pleased and displeased; affected by delight and pain, comfort and discomfort; he ate and drank, slept and woke up, was tired and rested etc.

This was the condition of ‘Īsā (a.s.) when he was among the people. Doubtlessly a person having such characteristics is just a mortal man like any other member of his species. As such he, like all other human beings, was a creature made by Allāh. Now, let us look at the miracles and supernatural things that happened on his hand, like giving life to dead bodies, creating the birds and healing the blind and leper. Also, there are extraordinary signs related to his birth, that is, his conception without father. All these things are supernatural, against the normal custom which people are familiar with; yet they are unfamiliar because of their rarity, not because they are impossible. There was Adam who by evidence of the heavenly Books was created from dust and had no father. And here are the prophets, for example: Sālih, Ibrāhīm and Mūsā (peace be upon them) on whose hand so many miraculous signs had appeared (which are mentioned in revealed scriptures). But nobody thinks that those miracles negated their humanity or proved their divinity.

This method has been used in the verses: Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh is the third (Person) of the three’’; and there is no god but the One God, The Messiah, son of Maryam is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman, they both used to eat food. See how We make the signs clear to them, then behold how they are turned away (5:73 - 75).

Eating food has been specially selected for mention in preference to other activities, beause it rather more forcefully proves his materiality and shows his neediness and wants, which cannot be combined with Godhead. Obviously, a person who by his nature feels hunger and thirst and satisfies it with a morsel of food and a cup of water, is nothing but an embodiment of poverty and need - a need that cannot be removed without help of some extraneous agent. How can such a man be God? What is the meaning of such divinity? A man surrounded by needs, depending for their fulfilment on something outside his own being, is deficient in himself, and managed by some other than himself. He cannot be self-sufficient god; rather he shall be a creature who is looked after by the Lord the Lord Who has His creatures’ affairs in His Own Hand. The verse 5:17 may possibly be explained in this light: Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh He is the Messiah, son of Maryam’’. Say: ‘‘Who then could control any thing as against Allāh when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Maryam and his mother and all those on the earth?’’And Allāh’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allāh has power over all things.

The same is the case with the verse (coming after 5:75 quoted above) addressing the Christians: Say: ‘‘Do you worship besides Allāh that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit?’’ And Allāh - He is the Hearing, the Knowing (5:76).

The basis and theme of such arguments is this: ‘Īsā (a.s.), as is seen from his condition and affairs, lived according to, and was governed by, the natural law which permeates a man’s life. He had all the attributes, did all the deeds, and underwent all the conditions which a human being does; like eating, drinking, fulfilling all other human needs, showing all characteristics of the human race. Also this material involvement, these physical attributes were real; not an illusion or imagination. ‘Īsā (a.s.), was a real man who had those natural attributes, conditions and actions. The Gospels contain many verses in which he calls himself man and son of man; are full of the stories of his eating, drinking, sleeping, walking, travelling, tiring, speaking and many such things which cannot be explained away, nor can they be interpreted otherwise. This being the case, the position of the Messiah would be the same as that of other human beings; he did not own or control any affair of the others, and he could be destroyed like others.

The same is the implication of his prayers and invocations; no doubt that he worshipped Allāh, his intention being to reach nearer to Allāh, with humbleness and humility to the sublimity and majesty of Allāh; certainly it was not for the purpose of teaching others how to pray or for any other such aim.

The verse 4:172 arguing against ‘Īsā’s supposed divinity points to his prayer. Allāh says: The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allāh, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His worship and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself. ‘Īsā’s service and worship is the first and foremost proof that he was not God and that he had no share in Godhead which is reserved for the One other than him. How can a man put himself in the position of servitude to himself? How can he be the slave of himself? How can a thing be self-sufficient in the same framework in which it is dependent on someone else? The answer is clear: In no way.

Likewise, the worship of the angels clearly shows that they are not Allāh’s daughters. Nor is the Holy Ghost a God, because they all are worshippers of Allāh and obedient to Him. Allāh says: And they say: ‘‘The Beneficient God has taken to Himself a son.’’ Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honoured servants; they do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves, and for fear of Him they tremble (21:26 - 28).

Moreover, the Gospels contain verses showing that the Spirit or Ghost is obedient to Allāh and His messengers, following their commands, acting on their orders. There is no sense in saying that a thing orders itself or obeys itself, or that it accepts and acts on the orders of its own creatures (i.e., messengers).

In the same way as ‘Īsā’s worship of Allāh proves that ‘Īsā was not Allāh, his call to the people to worship Allāh proves it; as the verse points to it: Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘‘Surely Allāh, He is the Messiah, son of Maryam ’’; and the Messiah said: ‘‘O Children of Israel! worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord, surely whoever associates (others) with Allāh, then Allāh has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust’’ (5:72). The method of argument used in this verse is self-evident.

Although the Gospels do not contain such comprehensive sentence as, ‘‘worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord’’, they are full of his sayings calling people to Allāh and to His worship; he repeatedly declares that Allāh is his Lord in Whose Hand is the management of his affairs; he openly says that Allāh is the Lord of the people; and never invites them to his own worship - in spite of his reported saying: ‘‘I and my Father are one’’ (John, 10:30). If we accept that it is a correct reporting, then, all things taken together, it must mean: my obedience is Allāh’s obedience; thus, it shall have the same connotation as the verse of the Qur’ān: Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allāh (4:80).

5. ‘Īsā is An Intercessor, not A Redeemer

The Christians believe that Jesus Christ atoned for their sins with his blood; and that is why they call him the Redeemer, the Saviour. They explain this belief as follows:

‘‘Adam disobeyed Allāh by partaking of the forbidden tree; it was a sin which remained with Adam, and it is inherited by his progeny who come into this world burdened with that original sin; and the recompense of sin is punishment in the next world, the eternal perdition, the everlasting ruin - which cannot be warded off. And Allāh is Merciful and Just - both at the same time.

‘‘This situation created a knotty problem which defied all solutions:

If Allāh were to punish Adam and his progeny for their sin, it would have been against the mercy for which He had created them; and if He were to forgive them, it would have been against His Justice. Justice demands that a sinner should be punished for his sins and errors, just as a gooddoer and obedient person should be rewarded for his good deeds.33

‘‘This problem remained unsolved until Allāh solved it through Christ. Christ - the Son of God who was Himself God - entered the womb of a descendant of Adam, that is, the Virgin Maryam, and was born from her as a human being is born. In this way, he was a complete man, because he was a son of man; and at the same time, was a complete God, because he was the Son of God.

‘‘And the Son of God, being God Himself, was sinless and protected from every sin and error.

‘‘He lived among his people for sometime, mixing and dealing with them; he joined them in eating and drinking, talked and walked with them and befriended them. Thereafter he surrendered to his enemies enabling them to kill him the worst killing - killing by crucifixion, because one who is crucified is, according to the Divine Scriptures, cursed by God.

‘‘He took upon Himself the Divine curse and crucifixion, with all the condemnations, sufferings and chastisement which it entails. In this way he redeemed the people through his sacrifice, in order that they might be saved from the chastisement of the hereafter and the eternal perdition.

Thus, he is the atonement for the sins of the believers, nay, for the sins of the whole world.’’34 This is what the Christians believe.

The Christians have made this theory (i.e., the crucifixion and atonement) the foundation of their religion. It is the Alpha and Omega of their call and mission - in the same manner as the Qur’ān has founded the Islam and its mission on monotheism; as Allāh says addressing His Messenger (s.a.w.a.): Say: ‘‘This is my way: I invite (you) unto Allāh: with clear sight (are) I and he who follows me; and glory be to Allāh; and I am not of the polytheists’’ (12:108).

It is the Christians’ belief in spite of the fact that Christ (as the Gospels clearly say, and we have mentioned earlier) used to admonish them first of all to believe in one God and to love Him.

The Muslims as well as many non-Muslims have shown the Christians the defects and invalidities of the above-mentioned belief of Christianity. Countless books and booklets have been written and numerous pamphlets and articles published, showing that this theory is not only contrary to logic and reason, but is also contradictory to the Books of the Old and the New Testaments. What we are concerned with here - and what comes within the purview of this book of ours - is to show how this idea is opposed to the basic Qur’ānic teachings, and to explain the difference between intercession (as confirmed by the Qur’ān) and atonement (as claimed by the Christians).

Moreover, the Qur’ān clearly says that it talks with the people explaining the things in such a way as to bring it to the level of their understanding, to make it easier for them to grasp its realities. It explains what helps them to distinguish the truth from the falsehood, so that they may accept that and reject this. It enables him to differentiate between virtue and evil, between beneficial and harmful, so that he may take the one and leave the other. The fact that the Qur’ān keeps in view the level of the healthy reason and understanding is abundantly clear to all who study the Divine Book.

Now let us have a critical look at the above mentioned Christian theory of atonement:

First: They say that Adam committed a sin by eating from the forbidden tree. But the Qur’ān refutes this idea in two ways:

1. The said prohibition was not like a binding order given by a master to his slave; it was only an advisory counsel aiming at the good of the person so advised - in order that he may live more comfortably. Such an advice does not bring any judicial reward or punishment whether one acts upon it or ignores it. It is not different from the order or prohibition of an advisor to the one who seeks his advice, or the directions given by a physician to his patient. What happens in such situations is this. If the person concerned acts upon the advice, he achieves what is good and beneficial to him in this life; and if he neglects such advice, he may come to harm in this world. When Adam ate from the forbidden tree, the only harm he suffered was his removal from the Garden, and thus he lost the comfort and happiness he had been enjoying there. But there was no question at all of any punishment of hereafter, because he had not disobeyed any compulsory legislative order which could have resulted in ‘‘punishment’’. (For detail, see the Commentary of the verses 2:35 - 39).35

2. Adam (a.s.) was a prophet: The Qur’ān clearly says that the prophets were sinless; they were protected by Allāh from committing sins and transgressing the ‘‘orders’’ of Allāh. Logical reasons support this belief and the Qur’ān proves it. (See our discourse on the sinlessness of the prophets given in the Commentary of the verse 2:2l3).36

Second: They say that the said sin remained with Adam. But the Qur’ān rejects this idea when it says: Then his (Adam’s) Lord chose him, so He turned to him (with mercy) and guided (him) (20:122); Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to -hiim mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful (2:37). The reason also supports, nay, proves it. Retribution of sin is a frightening and formidable thing which the reason - or the master - thinks necessary for him who disobeys the command or shows obstinancy; it is from fear of punishment that legislations and laws are obeyed. Had there been no reward and punishment, the mastership could not be enforced and no order or prohibition would be obeyed. The master has the right and power to punish the sinners for their sins as well as to give rewards to the obedient ones for their obedience. Likewise, it lies within his power to excercise his discretion in a way he thinks fit, within the jurisdiction of his mastership. He has every right to pass over and overlook the disobedience and mistakes of wrong-doers by forgiving and pardoning them their sins and wrongs. This power of forgiveness is a part of management and rule as much as is the authority to mete out punishment. There is no doubt in any mind that forgiveness and pardon, in certain cases, is good and commendable when the forgiver has full power to punish; even today reasonable persons practise it and put it into effect. In this background, there is no reason why a wrong done by a man should remain attached to him forever. Otherwise, forgiveness and pardon would have no meaning at all. One forgives and pardons for erasing a mistake, for nullifying the effect of a sin; and if we say that the mistake and sin remains attached and cannot be removed, then forgiveness and pardon are meaningless. Moreover, the Divine Revelation is full of descriptions of forgiveness and pardon; also the Old and New Testaments speak of it. Not only that, even the afore-mentioned ‘‘Christian dogma’’ speaks about it. In short, the claim that a certain sin or mistake had been attached to a man, which could not be erased or forgiven even after repentance and expression of sorrow, even after returning to the Lord with sincerity, is a thing which no reason would accept, nor would any straight thinking person agree with.

Third: They say that the sin of Adam has remained attached not only to him but even to his progeny upto the Day of Resurrection. It means that the punishment of a crime of one person was extended to the others too who had no hand in that sin. In other words, a slave commits a sin and the master widens the circle of punishment to include even those who were in no way connected with that sin! (We are not speaking about a situation where someone had committed a sin and his descendants were pleased with his action; because in that case all would be counted as sinners.) What the Christians say puts the burden of sin on those who had nothing to do with that supposed sin. And the Qur’ān rejects it when it says: That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another: and that there is not for man (aught) except what he strives for (53:38 - 39). Sound reason supports this dictum, because it is an evil to penalize someone for a sin he has not committed. (Vide the discourse on the ‘‘Deeds’’, under the verses 2:216 - 218.)37

Fourth: Their argument is based on a misconception that every mistake and sin - without any exception - throws the man into eternal perdition. In other words, sins do not differ in size and magnitude - all are great and capital. But the Qur’ān teaches us that the sins and errors are of various categories: some are great, others small; some may be forgiven, others like polytheism shall not be forgiven except after repentance. Allāh says: If you avoid the great sins which you are forbidden, We will expiate from you your (small) sins and cause you to enter an honourable (place of) entering (4:31); Surely Allāh does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases (4:48). Thus Allāh has taught us that some of the forbidden things, that is, sins and mistakes, are great, and others are, by implication, small; some are not forgivable while others are forgiven. In any case, sins vary in their seriousness, and not every sin puts the sinner in eternal perdition or everburning fire.

Reason also refuses to lump all sins together, to put all mistakes in one category. A slap on face is different from murder; a lustful eye and fornication are not one; and so on. Never in the long human history have people treated all sins and errors alike. Sane persons in every age have prescribed different punishments for different crimes. How can it be possible to bracket all sins together without any discrimination, when there is so clear difference among them? In view of this accepted difference, only a few of them may cause eternal perdition, never-ending chastisement (for example) associating others whit Allāh, as the Qur’ān has said: Obviously going against the prohibition of partaking of a tree cannot be put in the category of disbelief in Allāh or polytheism or things like that. Thus there is no reason why it should cause an eternal punishment. (Vide the above-mentioned discourse on Deeds).

Fifth: Let us look at what they have said about the problem of the conflict between the Divine attributes of mercy and justice; how a plan was devised to overcome that difficulty; and how Christ came down and then ascended to heaven to effect that scheme - with all the ramifications they have mentioned.

Ponder on this statement and its concomitants, and see what type of god they believe in. Here you will find a Creator God Who is the beginning and the end of this created universe and all its components. But all His actions emanate from a will and a knowledge which are found in Him; and His will depends on an academic preference - in the same way as a man opts for a course of action after weighing its pros and cons according to his knowledge. Likewise, God ponders on the positive and negative sides of a thing and then decides whether to do it or not. Sometimes He makes a wrong choice and repents for it38 ; at other times He meditates upon a problem without finding its correct solution; often He remains unaware of many affairs. In short, in their eyes, God in His attributes and actions is not different from a man. Whatever He does, He does it after thinking and meditating over it, directing His endeavours to the advantages of that action. His decision is thus governed and controlled by some extraneous factors, that is, the said advantages. He may find His way to the correct decision; also He may take a wrong decision; there may be error, misunderstanding or forgetfulness in the course He has taken. Sometimes He knows, at other times He does not; often He overpowers, and frequently is Himself overpowered. His power, like His knowledge, is limited. When all this is believed about Him, then it should be equally possible for Him to be subjected to all the conditions which prevail in a human being who decides to do a work after pondering on its pros and cons: God will thus experience joy and grief, vainglory and shame, happiness and sorrow - and things like that. Needless to say that such a being would be a physical and material one, governed by the laws of movement, change and gradual completion. A thing having these attributes must be a transient being, a created thing; it cannot be the Selfexisting God Who is the Creator of all things.

If you study the Old and New Testaments, you will know that all that we have said above is true; and that they believe in a god who has a body and has all the attributes found in a body, and especially in a man.

As for the Qur’ān, it declares the Lord’s glory in all these matters, showing that He is far above such myths and superstitions, as it says: Glory be to Allāh (for freedom) from what they describe (37:159). We have many incontestable rational proofs to show that Allāh is One in Whom all the attributes of perfection are united. His are the existence without any hint of inexistence, absolute power without any shade of weakness, all-encompassing knowledge without any taint of ignorance, absolute life without any possibility of death or destruction. This being the case, there can never come any change in His existence, power, knowledge or life.

Consequently, He cannot be a body or a thing related to body, because body and the things connected to it are surrounded by change and alteration, subdued by incorporeality, neediness and shortcomings. As He is not a body, nor related to body, He is not subjected to varying circumstances or changing conditions; He is far above forgetfulness or obliviousness, mistake or repentance, undecidedness or uncertainty, reaction or despondency, weakness or defeat - and things like that. We have fully explained the rational arguments (related) to these topics in this book in relevant places; those who want a thorough study should look for them under relevant verses.

A discerning reader may easily judge between the two beliefs: Here is the Qur’ān, declaring the glory of the Lord of the universe; it affirms for Him every attribute of perfection, and asserts His freedom from every imperfection; and declares that He is too great to be comprehended by our understanding - beset as it is by limitations and imperfections. And there are the Old and New Testaments describing God in terms which can only be found in the Greek, Indian and Chinese mythologies of the ancient times; and ascribing to Him such things which primitive man imagined and which his superstition led him to believe.

Sixth: They say that Allāh sent His Son, Christ, and told him to enter into the womb of a woman - in order that he could be born a man while he was a god. It is the same unintelligible theory which has been strongly refuted by the Qur’ān; there is no need to repeat here the earlierexplained Qur’ānic arguments against it.

Also the reason does not support this theory. First look at the attributes which are essential for the Self-existing Being. His existence is eternal, without beginning or end; there can be no change in Him; His existence knows no limit; He encompasses everything, but Himself is above the limits of time, space and their concomitants. Then think over the creation of man from the time he was a sperm to the stage when it is a foetus in a womb - no matter which interpretation you accept for this human birth of god: that of the Melchites, or the Nestorians, or the Jacobites or some other groups. In the end you will have to admit that there is no relationship between a thing that has a physical body with all its accidents and concomitants and a Being that has neither a body nor any of its concomitants or accidents (like time, space, movement etc.). How can one even think of unity between the two in any way?

The fact is that this theory does not agree with self-evident rational propositions. That is why St. Paul and other leaders of Christianity hold philosophy in contempt and spurn and disdain rational arguments. St. Paul writes: ‘‘For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified.’’ (Epistle of Paul, ch. 1)39

We find a lot of pronouncements - in similar vein - in his as well as in others’ writings. This line was adopted only for propagation of their ideas and missionary activities. Anyone pondering on these epistles and books and studying the way they address the people may easily understand the motive behind it.

The above discourse also exposes the flaw in their statement that: ‘‘God is sinless and protected from sins and errors.’’ The God they have imagined is not safe from errors at all; He errs in His perceptions and He errs in His actions. Of course, He does not disobey anyone because none is superior to Him. That is why the question of sin and disobedience does not arise at all, so far as God is concerned. Consequently, it is irrelevant, nay, unimaginable, to say that He is ‘‘protected from sins’’.

Seventh: They say that God became man and then lived with his people as a man lives in society until he surrendered to his enemies.

It means that the Self-existent God may acquire for Himself some properties especially reserved for transient and incorporeal creatures - only then He can be God and man all at the same time. If so, then He can also become any of His other creatures; He may acquire for Himself the reality of any of the species created by Him. One day He may appear as a man, the next day as a horse; sometimes as a bird, at other times as an insect, and so on. He may even acquire more than one reality at a time, that is, He may come to this world as a combination of several species, for example, He may appear as perfect man and perfect horse and perfect insect, all at the same time.

Likewise, He may do any action done by His creatures - because He may appear as a certain species and then would do the actions reserved for that species. Going a step further, it would be possible for Him to do two opposite things together like justice and injustice, or to acquire opposite attributes for Himself, for example, knowledge and ignorance, power and lack of power, life and death, want and freedom from want. Glory be to Allāh Who is far above such absurdities! (This snag is different from the one explained in the Sixth Objection.)

Eighth: They say that he suffered until he was crucified and took upon himself the curse, because a crucified person is cursed. What do they really mean when they say that he took the curse upon himself? What is the meaning of curse? In common usage and language curse means removal from Divine Mercy and Honour. Does that supposed curse imply the same meaning? Or is it something else? If it has the same meaning which is known to the language and common usage, then how can God remove Himself from His own mercy? Or, how can anyone else remove Him away from His own mercy? What is mercy? It is a positive bestowal, a grant of favours and bounties, a bequeathal of especialities of existence. When one is cursed - taken away from Divine Mercy - it results in poverty, disgrace or effects like that - in this world or the next or in both. This being the case, what is the sense of saying that God was effected by curse? Choose any meaning for curse, it cannot apply to God - the God Who is Self-sufficient and fulfils the needs of everything.

The Qur’ānic teaching is diametrically opposed to this truly amazing theory of the New Testament. Allāh says: O men! you are the ones who stand in need of Allāh, and Allāh is He Who is Self-sufficient, the Praised One (35:15). Also the names and attributes of Allāh mentioned in the Qur’ān make it clear that it is impossible for any type of need or want, shortcoming or defect, loss or extinction, evil or abomination, disgrace or stigma to reach the sublime majesty of Allāh.

Poser: God suffered disgrace and took the curse upon Himself only because He became one with man. Otherwise, He in His own Self is too high to be affected by such things.

Reply: Did God, by becoming one with man, take upon Himself that curse and those sufferings in real sense of the word? Or, was it all just a metaphor, only an allegory? If it was in real sense, our objection stands. And if it was only in a metaphorical sense, then the original ‘‘problem’’ would remain unsolved; the birth of Christ would not solve the conflict between Divine Mercy and Divine Justice. If it was not God - but somone else - who suffered all those indignities and curse - the socalled scheme of atonement would remain unfulfilled. Obviously, the said plan was based on the idea that God Himself should be the ransom for human beings.

Ninth: They say that ‘Īsā atoned for the sins of the believers, nay, for the sins of the whole world. This talk shows that they do not understand the real meaning of sin and error, nor do they comprehend how the sins bring the next world’s punishment, or how that punishment is affected. Also, they have not grasped the relationship between sins and errors on one side and Divine Legislation on the other, nor do they know the stand of the sharī‘ah about it. But the Qur’ān clearly describes all these things and teaches us these realities - as we have explained in the Commentaries of verses 2:26 (Surely Allāh is not ashamed to set forth any parable ...) and 2:213 (Mankind was but one nation...). We have described there that the orders and laws (which might be the subject of disobedience) and the sins and errors all are mentally posited things based on subjective consideration. They have been made for the protection of society’s welfare; and the punishment of its disobedience is the unpleasant result which has been prescribed with a single aim in view - to discourage and prevent a responsible man from indulging into sin, from disobeying the law. This is the view of the sages who have laid the foundation of human society.

But the Qur’ānic teaching leads us to a still higher level in this respect (and the rational reasoning supports it, as we have explained). It says that when a man obeys the sharī‘ah prescribed for him by Allāh, his psyche acquires some noble and praiseworthy inner traits; and if he disobeys the said sharī‘ah, he acquires unworthy, hideous and evil traits. It is these deeply ingrained traits and characteristics which prepare for him the rewards or punishments of the next life, respectively. That reward and punishment is represented by the Paradise and the Hell, respectively - and their respective reality is nearness to Allāh or distance from Him. Thus the merit and demerit of deeds are based on things which actually exist and have a system. Unlike our social laws they are not based on any imaginary thing emanating from subjective consideration.

Also it is not a secret that the Divine Legislation perfects and completes the Divine Creation. It brings the creative guidance to its final destination. In other words, Allāh brings every thing to the perfections of its existence, to the final goal of its being. And among the perfections of human existence are a good social system in this world, and a happy, bounteous life in the hereafter. The way to that perfection is religion which enacts and promulgates laws for society’s reform and development, and contains directions for reaching nearer to Allāh (and these directives are called acts of worship). When a man follows the laws of religion, his life and livelihood are improved, and his soul becomes ready to receive Allāh’s bounties; and he is qualified - in his self and in his actions - for the Divine Honour in the hereafter. All of this emanates from the light put in his heart, and the purity that is found in his self. This in short is the reality.

Man gets nearer to Allāh or goes far away from Him. This nearness and distance are the foundations of his eternal happiness and unhappiness, respectively - and also for his social development (or otherwise) in this life. And religion is the only factor that brings about his nearness and distance. All these are real things, not based on imaginary assumptions or subjective considerations.

Now suppose that one putative sin of Adam - his partaking of the forbidden tree - brought eternal perdition on him, and not only on him, but on all his descendants also; and that there was no remedy for it, no relief from that ruination - except atonement through Christ. Then what was the use of sending religion - any religion - before Christ? And what was the use of ordaining it with Christ? And what is the use of promulgating it after Christ?

Let us put it this way: Eternal perdition and punishment in hereafter was a firmly-decreed fate of man - because of the said sin; it could not be removed or averted from him either through good deeds or through repentance; the only effective remedy was the atonement through Christ’s suffering and crucifixion. Then why did Allāh promulgate the laws, revealed the books, and sent the prophets and messengers? What was the sense behind all this exercise? Were not all those promises and threats, all those good tidings and warnings devoid of truth? What could all those endeavours avail mankind when the whole species was doomed to perdition, and when eternal punishment was their firmly-decreed fate?

Also, suppose there were people who perfected themselves by sincerely following the previous sharī‘ah (and there were countless prophets and also men of God in previous ummah who were like that, for example, the honoured prophets Ibrāhīm, Mūsā and others); they lived perfectly and died before the time of atonement. Now what would you say about them? Did they end their life in infelicity and perdition? Or in felicity and happiness? What did they face when they met death and went to the next world? Did death bring them to chastisement and ruination? Or to Divine bounties and happy life?

Moreover, Christ clearly says that he was sent only to save the sinners and wrong-doers, and that good-doers and righteous have no need of such help.40

Frankly speaking, no valid reason can be given for promulgating the Divine Laws, for ordaining the religious values - before the supposed atonement was affected through Christ; it was but a vain, senseless and aimless exercise. Nor can any good and correct reason be advanced for this ‘‘strange’’ action of God. The only thing that can be said is this:

God knew very well that, unless the problem of Adam’s sin was solved, no law promulgated by Him would do any good. Yet He went on promulgating those laws just to be on safe side, hoping that one of these days He would get a chance to solve this problem and then He would be able to harvest the fruits of those legislation! Thus He legislated the laws and promulgated them through the prophets - hiding the truth from the prophets and their people alike. He did not tell them that there was a big problem which - if it remained unsolved - would nullify all the efforts of the whole group of the prophets and the believers, and which would render all the laws ineffective and useless. On the contrary, He pretended that the legislations and the prophetic missions were very serious, very important and very real things.

Thus God deceived the people, and deceived Himself too. He deceived the people by promising that their safety and happiness was guaranteed if they faithfully followed the sharī‘ah. And He deceived Himself because, once the atonement was affected, legislation of the sharī‘ah would become irrelevant, without having any effect on the people’s felicity - in the same way as it was without any effect as long as the problem of Adam’s sin was not solved. This was the case before affectation of the said atonement.

Coming to the time when atonement was affected, and to the later days, ineffectiveness and futility of the sharī‘ah, of prophetic mission and of Divine Guidance is much more self-evident. What is the use or benefit of believing in divinely-sent realities and doing good deeds now that the problem of the original sin has been solved, and the atonement has brought forgiveness and mercy to all men, believers and unbelievers, righteous and unrighteous, all alike, without any difference between the most impeccable righteous one and the most incorrigible impious one: Both were to suffer eternal perdition when the original sin was not redeemed and both are to share in the Divine Mercy now that it has been redeemed through the said atonement. (Remember that no good deed could remove that stigma, if there were no atonement.)

Objection: The atonement would benefit only those who believe in Christ. Therefore, the prophetic mission did have its use and benefit, as Christ has said in the Gospel.41

Reply: First of all, it contradicts the saying of St. John referred to earlier. Secondly, it destroys all the edifice built so far, because nobody - right from Adam to the Last Day - would enter the sanctuary of safety and deliverance except a very small group, that is, those who believe in Christ and the Holy Ghost; and not even all the Christians but only a certain group among all those widely differing denominations - all other denominations would be thrown into eternal perdition. I wish I knew what would happen to the honoured prophets (who came) before Christ, and to the believers of their ummah ! What would be the status of their mission, of the books they brought and of the wisdom they taught? Was it true? Or just a lie? The Gospels verify the Torah and its mission, and there is no mention at all of the Ghost and the atonement in the Torah. Does the Gospel verify a true book? Or does it verify a pack of lies?

Poser: As we know, the previously revealed books give the good tidings of Christ. This was a sort of a general call by them towards Christ, although they did not give any detail about his coming and atoning the sin. God was always telling His prophets about the advent of Christ in order that they might believe in him and be happy with what he would do.

Reply: First: To make such claims for the prophets before Mūsā is to shoot in the dark, to venture into terra incognita. Moreover, if there was any good news, it was not an invitation to believe in, and follow, him. Secondly, that good tiding does not solve the problem of futility of the sharī‘ah; if Christ delivered all those who believed in him, then was it not useless and futile to invite people to follow the laws of the sharī‘ah and to practise good ethics and morality? Even Christ exhorted people to follow the rules of religion and be of good conduct; and the Gospels are full of his sermons to this effect. Thirdly, the basic problem still remains. They had talked about the original sin and the unfulfilment of the Divine Purpose, and that purpose is still unfulfilled. God had created mankind to bestow His mercy on all of them, to cover all of them with His favour and bounties, felicity and happiness. But what is the result? Almost all of them - with the exception of a small group - are going to be punished, suffering under the wrath of God, thrown into eternal perdition.

These are just a few of the rational reasons showing the absurdity and invalidity of this theory. The Qur’ān too supports these reasons. Allāh says: Our Lord is He Who gave to everything its creation, then guided it (to its goal) (20:50). He has made it clear that everything is guided to its goal and to what its existence demands. The guidance is of two kinds: creative and legislative. It is the established way of Allāh to bestow every relevant guidance on everything, and it includes the religious guidance bestowed on man.

Then Allāh says - and it is the first religious guidance given to Adam and those who were sent down with him from the Garden: We said: ‘‘Get down you therefrom all together; if there comes to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve, And (as to) those who disbelieve in and belie our signs, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide’’ (2:38 - 39). It gives in a nut-shell what various laws were to promulgate in detail upto the Day of Resurrection; it contains legislation as well as promise and threat - all in clear terms without ambiguity. Again He says: and the truth do I speak (38:84); The word is not changed with Me, nor am I in the least unjust to the servants (50:29). Allāh declares that He has no hesitation or misgiving about what He decides, He does not break what He has joined; whatever He decides, He enforces; and what He says, He enacts; His action does not deviate from the line He has prescribed for it. He does not waver or hesitate when He wills; nor is it befitting to His knowledge that He should intend a thing and then some demerit should appear in that course of action which He did not know before and thus He should decide not to do it. Nor can anyone else hinder His plan: It is not that He should will a thing, deciding to do it and then some rational defect should prevent Him from doing it, or some snag should appear in its execution and He should abandon the plan - because all such things, if they ever happened, would show helplessness of God. Allāh says: and Allāh is predominant over His affairs (12:21); surely Allāh attains His purpose (65:3); and Mūsā is reported as saying: The knowledge thereof is with my Lord in a book: errs not my Lord, nor does He forget (20:52); and Allāh says about the Day of Judgment: This day every soul shall be rewarded for what it has earned; no injustice (shall be done) this day; surely Allāh is quick in reckoning (40:17).

These and similar other verses clearly show that Allāh, after creating His creatures, has not neglected to look after their affairs, nor is He ignorant of what they would do, nor is He sorry for what He has done. As He is constantly looking after their welfare, He has ordained for them His laws - a serious and important legislation which He has ordained not because He is afraid of something or expects to gain something through it. He shall reward every doer for his action - if good, then good; and if evil, then evil. In all these affairs nobody can overpower Him, nor can anyone impose his will on Him - because He has no partner or colleague. There will be neither any ransom nor any redemption to save anyone; nor can anyone intercede for someone without Allāh’s permission. Because all such propositions are against His absolute ownership which He has over His creatures.

Tenth: Let us look at the story of atonement. What is atonement or ransom? A man - or a thing related to him - is involved in some crimes or sin, as a result of which he faces the possibilities of harm or destruction of life or valuable property; and therefore he offers something less important in order to save his life or the more valuable property. A man taken prisoner redeems himself with offer of some money; crimes are redeemed with money paid as fine. The thing given for this purpose is called ransom, fine or redemption. Atonement, in short, is a deal which transfers the right of the claimant from the person so redeemed to the thing given in ransom or redemption - and thus the redeemed one is saved from captivity or from the evil consequences of the crime he had committed.

This description shows that atonement and redemption is simply unimaginable in the matters related to Allāh. The Divine Authority - unlike human authority which is merely an abstracted idea, a subjective consideration - is the real authority which cannot be changed or transferred. Things, in their species and with their effects, actions and reactions, have been created by Allāh and continue to exist because of Him. It is a reality, a fact; and reality and fact cannot change into nonreality, non-fact. Such a proposition cannot be imagined - let alone its ever coming into being. Allāh’s ownership, authority and rights are not like those of us human beings. We are bound with social norms and laws.

Our social rights, authority and ownership are merely subjective considerations, abstracted ideas based on our imaginations; their status and worth is in our own hands; we may establish a right today and abolish it tomorrow - as our interest and outlook change concerning our life and livelihood. For details see Commentaries of the verses 1:4 (the Master of the Day of Judgment)42 , and 3:26 (Say: ‘O Allāh, Master of the Kingdom ’)43 .

Allāh has specifically refuted the idea of atonement in the following verse: So today ransom shall not be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire (57:15). And as explained earlier, the same is the import of the words of the Messiah quoted by Allāh in the Qur’ān: And when Allāh will say: ‘‘O ‘Īsā son of Maryam! did you say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allāh’ ’’, he will say: ‘‘Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); I did not say to them save that what Thou didst enjoin me with: ‘That worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord’, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me (away) completely, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. If Thou shouldst chastise them, then surely they are The servants; and if Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise’’ (5:116 - 118). His words: ‘‘and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them ’’, have the following import: ‘I had nothing to do with them except what Thou hadst entrusted me to do, that is, conveying Thy message to them and being a witness over them - as long as I was among them; whether Thou shouldst chastise them or shouldst forgive them, entirely depends on Thy discretion; I have nothing to do with it. I do not have any authority on Thy will, with which I could save them from Thy chastisement or sentence them to punishment.’

It clearly refutes the idea of ransom and atonement. Had there been any ransoming or redeeming, it would have been wrong for him to wash his hands of the fate of his ummah, telling Allāh that it was His (Allāh’s) discretion whether to punish them or forgive them, and that he ( ‘Īsā - a.s.) had nothing to do with it.

Of similar connotation are the following verses:

And be on your guard against the Day when one soul shall not avail another in the least, neither shall intercession on its behalf be accepted, nor shall any compensation be taken from it, nor shall they be helped (2:48).

... before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession (2:254).

The day on which you will turn back retreating; there shall be no saviour for you from Allāh (40:33).

Obviously, the ‘‘compensation’’ (in the first verse), the ‘‘bargaining’’ (of the second) and the ‘‘saviour’’ (of the third) all apply to the idea of atonement and redemption; the verses in refuting these things refute the belief of atonement.

Of course, the Qur’ān accepts the Messiah as one of the intercessors - but not as an atonement. We have explained about ‘‘Intercession’’ under the verse 2:48 (And be on your guard against the day when one soul shall not avail another...)44 . We have explained there that intercession shows the nearness of the intercessor and his good standing with the master, without there being any transfer of authority from the master to the intercessors; without affecting in any way the ownership or power of the master; without nullifying or abrogating the master’s commandment which the sinner had disobeyed; and without negating the system of recompense, reward and punishment. Intercession is but a sort of prayer and request by the intercessor that the master - in this case, the Lord - should manage the affairs of His creature with mercy. The intercessor accepts the Master’s right to punish the sinner (because he had sinned and the law of recompense makes him liable to punishment), but asks the Master to exercise His power of forgiveness - because He has the right to forgive as He has the right to punish.

The intercessor thus requests the Master to exercise His right of pardon and forgiveness, when the sinner has become liable for punishment, without in any way affecting the Master’s ownership or authority. But atonement is something else; it is a deal, a bargain, which transfers the Master’s authority from the sinner to the ransom given in his place, and removes the sinner from the Master’s power as soon as the Master accepts the ransom in his place.

That the Messiah is ari- intercessor is proved by the following verse: And those whom they call upon besides Him have no authority for intercession, but he who bears witness of the truth and they know (43:86). It clearly says that the people excepted would have the authority to intercede. ‘Īsā (a.s.) is among those whom they call besides Allāh. But he has the authority of intercession because he is included in the exception: Allāh confirms in the Qur’ān that He had taught him (‘Īsā) the Book and the Wisdom, and that he (‘Īsā) shall be among the witnesses on the Day of Judgment. Allāh says: And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom (3:48), and quotes him as saying: and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them (5:117). He also says: and on the Day of Resurrection he shall be a witness against them (4:159).

All these verses read together prove that ‘Īsā (a.s.) is one of the intercessors. We have described it in detail under the following verse: And be on your guard against the day when one soul shall not avail another in the least (2:48).

6. The Origin of These Beliefs

The Qur’ān rejects the idea that these theories and beliefs were started or propagated by ‘Īsā (a.s.). The fact is that the Christians blindly followed their leaders, leaving all affairs in their hands; and the leaders transplanted the myths of ancient idolators into Christianity. Allāh says: And the Jews say: ‘‘ ‘Uzayr is the son of Allāh’’; and the Christians say: ‘‘The Messiah is the son of Allāh’’; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allāh destroy them; how they are turned away! They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allāh, and (also) the Messiah son of Maryam, and they were not en-joined but that they should worship one God only, there is no god but He; far from His Glory be what they set up (with Him) (9:30 - 31).

Who are the unbelievers whom Allāh refers to when He says: they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before? Surely it does not refer to the idolaters of pre-Islamic Arabia, who said that the angels were the daughters of God. Because the People of the Book believed God to have a son long before they came into contact with the Arabs - and especially so the Jews; while the words, who disblieved before, apparently refer to the unbelievers who were before the Jews and the Christians. Moreover, the Arabs themselves were not the originators of idol-worship - it was brought to them from abroad.45

Moreover, the idolaters of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Syria and India were nearer to the People of the Book (who lived in Palestine and its neighbourhood), and it was easier for the Jews and the Christians to adopt those people’s beliefs and rituals, and the influencing factors were more conducive to it.

Therefore the unbelievers of earlier times (whose ideas concerning sonship of God, the People of the Book imitated) referred to by the Qur’ān were the ancient idolaters of India and China, as well as those of Rome, Greece and North Africa. The history shows close resemblance of such Jewish and Christians beliefs with the myths of those nations - like sonship, fathership, trinity, as well as the stories of crucifixion and atonement etc. These are the historical facts to which the Qur’ān has drawn our attention.

Similarly, the following verse points to this historical fact: Say: ‘‘O People of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of the people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path’’ (5:77). This verse shows that their immoderation in religion, their excessive love of some creatures which led them to raise them to godhead, had come to them from some previous nations who had gone astray before them, and in whose footsteps the Jews and the Christians were following.

The phrase: the people who went astray before, does not refer to their scholars or monks. The phrase is unrestricted and unconditional; it does not say, ‘the people among you’. or ‘led many among you astray’. Nor does it point to the Arabs of the days of ignorance - as we have explained earlier.

Moreover, it describes those people as having led many people astray; in other words, they were leaders of falsehood, whose words were listened to and whose directions were followed. Arabs did not have such a position in those days; they were just a small group of unlettered people, and did not have any knowledge, civilization and development in which - or because of which - other people could follow them. But the case of Iran, Rome and India etc., was different; they were highly civilized and developed nations.

Clearly the verse points to the idol-worshippers of China, India and the western countries, as we have explained.

7. Which Book the People of the Book Belong to? What is Its Condition?

Although traditions count the Zoroastrians among the People of the Book (and it means they must have had a special Book of their own, or should have belonged to one of the Books mentioned by the Qur’ān, for example, the Book of Nūh, the Scriptures of Ibrāhīm, Torah of Mūsā, Injī1 of ‘Īsā and Zabūr of Dāwūd), but the Qur’ān does not make any reference to them, nor does it mention any book of theirs; the Avastha which they have is not mentioned in the Qur’ān at all, and they do not acknowledge any of the other Books.

When the Qur’ān uses the term, the People of the Book, it means the Jews and the Christians, because of the Books which Allāh had revealed to them.

The Jewish Scripture contains 3546 Books: five are together called the Torah of Mūsā47 ; twelve are called the Kings48 ; then there are the Books of Job and Psalms of Dāwūd; then come three Books of Sulaymān49 ; and lastly seventeen Books called the Prophets50 .

The Qur’ān has not mentioned any of them except the Torah of Mūsā and the Zabūr of Dāwūd.

The Christians’ Scriptures are as follows: The four Gospels (of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John); the Acts of the Apostles, and several Epistles51 , and lastly the Revelation of John.

The Qur’ān does not mention any of these Christians’ Books. But it says that there was a Divine Book revealed to ‘Īsā son of Maryam, which was named Injī1; it was a single Book, not many. Although the Christians do not know it, nor do they acknowledge its existence, there are sentences in the writings of their leaders which contain admission that ‘Īsā did have a Book, Injīl by name52 .

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY FROM HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW

53

1. The History of the Present Torah:

The Israelites were descendants of Israel, that is, Ya‘qūb. In the beginning they lived a nomadic tribal life; then the Pharaohs brought them to Egypt, where they treated them as captive slaves. This continued until Allāh delivered them through Mūsā from the Pharaoh and his deeds.

During Mūsā’s time they followed the line of their Leader, that is, Mūsā (a.s.), and thereafter Yūsha‘ (a.s.) (Joshua). For sometime thereafter their affairs were in the hands of the judges like Ehud and Gideon etc. Then began the era of the Kings; the first of the Kings was Saul (Plat of the Qur’ān); and then came Dāwūd and Sulaymān (a.s.).

After Sulaymān the Kingdom was divided54 , and their power weakened. Still there came on throne more than thirty Kings like Rehoboam, Abijam, Jeroboam, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and others.

The division continued to sap the nation’s strength until they were vanquished by the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar, who subdued Jerusalem, that is, Baytu’l-Maqdis around 600 B.C. Later the Jews revolted; so he sent his army which besieged them, and on reconquering the city, ransacked it, plundering the King’s treasures as well as those of the Temple. The Babylonians gathered the Jews and took about ten thousand souls - wealthy people, strong youths and artisans - in captivity to Babylonia, leaving only weak persons and beggars in Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah (the last Israelite King) to govern them as his vassal.

Ten years passed, Zedekiah gathered some strength and established some contact with the Pharaoh of the time. Then he revolted against Nebuchadnezzar. This enraged the latter who himself led his army against the Jews and besieged their towns. They fortified themselves and the siege continued for about one and a half year; the besieged population faced famine and epidemic. Still the siege continued until Nebuchadnezzer conquered all the forts in the year 586 B.C.; he massacred the Jews, turned their towns into ruins, demolished the Temple and destroyed every religious symbol. When he left, the Temple was only a mound of dust and rubble; and the Torah and the Ark in which it was kept were irretrievably lost.

The things continued like that for about fifty years. The Jews were captives in Babylonia; their Book (Torah) was lost and there was

nowhere any trace of it; their Temple was a ruin, their towns middens of rubble.

Then Cyrus, the Persian King, appeared on the scene. He vanquished Babylonians, conquered Babylonia and stayed there for a short time. He released the Israelite captives, and appointed Ezra as their leader; Ezra was authorized by him to rewrite the Torah for them, rebuild their Temple and re-establish their original rites and rituals. Ezra led the Israelites back to Jerusalem in 457 B.C.56 Thereafter he compiled and edited the books attributed to Mūsā - and it is what is known today as the Torah.56

If you think over these events you will see that the chain of the narrators of today’s Torah is broken, and not connected upto Mūsā (a.s.)

- except through a single person, that is, Ezra. But first of all, we do not know who Ezra was; secondly, we do not know how much he knew of the Torah or how deep his knowledge was; thirdly, we do not know how honest and trustworthy he was; fourthly, we do not know from where he collected what he compiled as the books of the Torah; and lastly, we do not know with which authentic source he compared his collection to correct the mistakes which might have crept into the text.

This unfortunate episode has given rise to another disturbing theory.

Some western scholars now deny the existence of Mūsā (a.s.) and the events related to him. They say that he is a mythical being who never existed. (The same theories have been advanced about ‘Īsā son of Maryam. But we the Muslims cannot entertain such ideas, because the Qur’ān in very clear terms confirms his existence (peace be on him).

2. The Story of ‘Īsa and the Gospel:

The Jews pay particular attention to their history. They have recorded main events through which they have passed. Nevertheless, if you hunt through their books and literature you will not come across any mention of ‘Īsā son of Maryam. Jewish literature throws no light on his birth or mission, nor does it say anything about his character of life story. It is silent about the miracles appearing on his hand; and does not say how his life on the earth was ended - did he die a natural death? Was he killed or crucified? Or, was there something else? Why this silence? Why had his affairs remained hidden from them? Or, why did they keep it hidden?

The Qur’ān mentions that the Jews had falsely accused Maryam and calumniated her regarding the birth of ‘Īsā, and that they claimed to have killed ‘Īsā. Allāh says: And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Maryam a grievous calumny. And their saying: ‘‘Surely we killed the Messiah, ‘Īsā son of Maryam, the messenger of Allāh’’; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like ‘Īsā); and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they killed him not for sure (4:156 - 157).

Was this claim of theirs based on some oral tradition which was never put to writing? Every nation does have such folklores - some facts, some myths - which should not be taken seriously unless they are based on correct, reliable sources.

Or, was it that they heard the Christians talking about the Messiah and his birth and mission; and taking the story from them they accused Maryam of indecency and claimed to having killed the Messiah? No definite answers can be found to these questions. As far as the Qur’ān is concerned, it clearly ascribes to them only the claim of killing, not of crucifying; then it says that they are in confusion and there is a difference of opinion among them about the whole matter.

As for the Christians, the story of the Messiah is based on their Scriptures, that is, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; as well as the Acts of the Apostles (by Luke) and several Epistles of Paul, Peter, Jacob, John and Jude. Authenticity of all depends on genuineness of the four Gospels; therefore let us have a look at them.

The Gospel of Matthew: It is the first and earliest of the Gospels so far as compilation and publication is concerned. Some say that it was written in 38 C.E.; others that it was compiled between 50 and 60 C. E.57 In any case, it was written after the Messiah.

The ancient and modern Christian scholars are of the opinion that it was originally written in Hebrew; and then translated into Greek and other languages. But the original Hebrew version is lost; and as for the translation, its condition (correctness, etc.) cannot be verified, nor is it known who had translated it58 .

The Gospel of Marks: Marks was a disciple of St. Peter; he was not one of the twelve disciples of the Christ. It is often said that he wrote his Gospel on Peter’s orders, and that he did not believe in divinity of the Christ59 . Accordingly some people say that he had written his Gospel for the tribes and villagers, and that was why he introduced Christ as a messenger of Allāh who brought and conveyed the sharī‘ah of Allāh60 .

He wrote this Book in 61 C.E.

The Gospel of Luke: Luke was neither one of the disciples nor had he seen Christ. He learnt Christianity from Paul. Paul was a Jew who hated the Christians and Christianity; he oppressed those who believed in Christ and used to hinder their activities and disturb their affairs. Then all of a sudden he came to them and claimed that he had been seized by an epileptic fit in course of which Christ appeared to him, and admonished him for his bad treatment of the Christians; according to his claim, he believed in Christ in the same trance and Christ in the same vision appointed him as his apostle to propagate the Christ’s Gospel.

It was St. Paul who laid the foundation of Christianity, as it is today61 .

He taught that mere believing in the Christ was enough for salvation; there was no need of acting on it. Accordingly, he allowed them to eat pork and dead animals; and forbade circumcision and a lot of the sharī‘ah of the Torah62 This was in spite of the fact that Injīl was revealed just as a verifier of the Torah, and had made lawful only a few things which were forbidden in Torah. ‘Īsā (a.s.) had come to re-establish the sharī‘ah of Torah, and to bring the deviators and transgressors back to it; he had not come to abrogate the sharī‘ah or to base the eternal felicity on a belief devoid of action.

Luke wrote his Gospel after that of Marks, and it was after the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul. Some people have firmly opined that the Gospel of Luke is not a revelation like other Gospels, as may be understood from his Prologue63 .

The Gospel of John: Many Christians say that the John who wrote it was John son of Zebedee, the fisher, one of the twelve disciples, and the one whom the Christ loved64 .

They say that as Cerinthus65 and Ebionites66 and their followers thought that the Christ was nothing more than a created human being whose existence did not precede his mother’s existence, the bishops of Asia and others visited John in 96 C.E. and urged him to write what others had not written in their Gospels so that he could particularly describe the divinity of the Christ. John had to comply with their request and wrote this Gospel67 .

There is a difference of opinion when it was written: Some say, in 65

C.E., some say, in 96 C.E., and others say, in 98 C.E.

Another group says that it was not written by John the disciple: Some say that it is the work of a student of Alexanderia68 ; others say that this Gospel as well as the Epistles of John were authored in the beginning of the 2nd Century by an unknown person who attributed them to John so that the writings might gain credence in people’s eyes69 ; yet others think that the Gospel of John originally contained twenty chapters and after his death the Church of Ephesus added the twenty-first70 .

This is then the condition of the four Gospels. What is certain is that all these narrations depend on seven persons: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and Jude; and they rely on the four Gospels, which in their turn rely on the earliest one, that is, the Gospel of Matthew. And we have already seen that it is a translation whose original is lost; nobody knows who had translated it. What was the theme and teaching of the original? Did it teach messengership of Christ? Or, his divinity?71

The present Gospels show that there had appeared among the Children of Israel a man named ‘Īsā son of Yūsuf, the carpenter; he began calling towards Allāh; he claimed that he was a son of God, born without agency of a human father, and that his Father had sent him to atone for the sin of the people through being killed by crucifixion; that he gave life to the dead, healed the blind and the lepers, and restored the possessed to health by removing devil from them; that there were twelve disciples with him, one of them being Matthew the Evangelist; he blessed them and sent them to propagate his religion ...

This is the gist of the Christianity and its mission - in spite of its having been spread to every corner of the world. It all boils down to a report by one person whose name and particulars are unknown, whose identity and character is shrouded in abscurity.

This curious weakness just in the initial stage has compelled some independent minds of Europe to claim that Christ, ‘Īsā son of Maryam, is a mythical being, invented by some religious movements for or against the government of the time. This view has been strengthened by another mythical character which it resembles in every detail, and that is the character of Krishna: The idol-worshippers of India believe that Krishna was the son of God, who descended to earth from his divine abode, and atoned for the people by being crucified in order to deliver them from their sins and mistakes. It is the same belief which the Christians have about Christ ‘Īsā. (Details are given below.)

Other scholars have found it necessary to say that there were in fact two Christs, one uncrucified, the other crucified, who came more than five centuries after the former.

The Christians Era (which at the time of writing is 1956 C.E.) does not correspond with any of the above-mentioned two dates. The former (uncrucified) Christ had preceded it by more than two hundred and fifty years (and lived for sixty years), while the latter (crucified) Christ came more than two hundred and ninety years after the beginning of the said Era (and lived for about thirty-three years)72 .

However, difference of the Christians Era with the actual birth-date of Christ is a fact which is not denied even by the Christians - and it is a historical disjunction73 .

Moreover, there are some other matters which give rise to doubts and mistrust. They have written that during the first two centuries many more Gospels, including the four now used, were written - their number exceeded a hundred. Then the Church banned all of them except the four which were canonized because they corresponded with the views of the Church74 .

Among the discarded ones was the Gospel of Barnabas, a copy of which was found years ago, and which has been translated into Arabic and Persian. The story of Christ, ‘Īsā son of Maryam, as given in this

Gospel, generally corresponds with that given in the Qur’ān75 .

Strangely enough, even the non-Jewish historical records are silent about what the Gospels present as the Christ’s mission - sonship, atonement and other related matters. The famous American historian, Hendrick Willem Van Loon has given in his book, Story of Mankind, a letter of a Roman physician, Aesculapius Cultellus, which he wrote in 62 A. D. to his nephew, Gladius Ensa, who was a soldier in Syria76 .

In that letter, he says:

A few days ago I was called in to prescribe for a sick man named Paul. He appeared to be a Roman citizen of Jewish parentage, well educated and of agreeable manners ...

A friend of mine tells me that he heard something about him in Ephesus where he was preaching sermons about a strange new god. I asked my patient if this were true Paul answered me that the kingdom of which he had spoken was not of this world and he added many strange utterances which I did not understand ...

His personality made a great impression upon me and I was sorry to hear that he was killed on the Ostian Road a few days ago. Therefore I am writing this letter to you. When next you visit Jerusalem, I want you to find out something about my friend Paul and the strange Jewish prophet, who seems to have been his teacher.... I would like to know the truth about all these romours ...

Six weeks later, Gladius Ensa, the nephew, [a captain of the VII Gallic Infantry], answered as follows:

[I received your letter and I have obeyed your order. Two weeks ago our brigade was sent to Jarusalem ...]

I have talked with most of the older men in this city but few have been able to give me any definite information.77

A few days ago a peddler came to the camp. I bought some of his olive and I asked him whether he had ever heard of the famous Messiah who was killed when he was young. He said that he remembered it very clearly.... He gave me the address of one Joseph, who had been a personal friend of the Messiah and told me that I had better go and see him if I wanted to know more.

This morning I went to call on Joseph. He was quite an old man. He had been a fisherman on one of the freshwater lakes. His memory was clear, and from him at last I got a fairly difinite account of what had happened during the troublesome days before I was born.

Tiberius, our great and glorious emperor, was on the throne, and an officer of the name of Pontius Pilatus was governor of Judaea and Samaria In the year 783 or 784 (Joseph had forgotten when) Pilatus was called to Jerusalem on account of a riot. A certain young man (the son of a carpenter of Nazareth) was said to be planning a revolution against the Roman government. Strangely enough our own intelligence officers, who are usually well informed, appear to have heard nothing about it, and when they investigated the matter they reported that the carpenter was an excellent citizen and that there was no reason to proceed against him. But the old-fashioned leaders of the Jewish faith, according to Joseph, were much upset. They greatly disliked his popularity with the masses of the poorer Hebrews. The ‘‘Nazarene’’ (so they told Pilatus) had publicly claimed that a Greek or a Roman or even a Palestinian, who tried to live a decent and honourable life, was quite as good as a Jew who spent his days in studying the ancient laws of Moses.

Pilatus does not seem to have been impressed by this argument, but when the crowds around the temple threatened to lynch Jesus, and kill all his followers, he decided to take the carpenter into custody to save his life.

He does not appear to have understood the real nature of the quarrel.

Whenever he asked the Jewish priests to explain their grievances, they shouted ‘‘heresy’’ and ‘‘treason’’ and got terribly excited. Finally, so Joseph told me, Pilatus sent for Joshua (that was the name of the Nazarene, but the Greeks who live in this part of the world always refer to him as Jesus) to examine him personally. He talked to him for several hours. He asked him about the ‘‘dangerous doctrines’’ which he was said to have preached on the shores of the sea of Galilee. But Jesus answered that he never referred to politics. He was not so much interested in the bodies of men as in Man’s soul. He wanted all people to regard their neighbours as their brothers and to love one single God, who was the father of all living beings.

Pilatus, who seems to have been well versed in the doctrines of the Stoics and the other Greek philosophers, does not appear to have discovered anything seditious in the talk of Jesus. According to my informant he made another attempt to save the life of the kindly prophet.

He kept putting the execution off. Meanwhile the Jewish people, lashed into fury by their priests, got frantic with rage. There had been many riots in Jerusalem before this and there were only a few Roman soldiers within calling distance. Reports were being sent to the Roman authorities in Caesarea that Pilatus had ‘‘fallen a victim to the teachings of the Nazarene’’. Petitions were being circulated all through the city to have Pilatus recalled, because he was an enemy of the Emperor. You know that our governors have strict instructions to avoid an open break with their foreign subjects. To save the country from civil war, Pilatus finally sacrificed his prisoner, Joshua, who behaved with great dignity and who forgave all those who hated him. He was crucified amidst the howls and the laughter of the Jerusalem mob.

That is what Joseph told me, with tears running down his old cheeks.

I gave him a gold piece when I left him, but he refused it and asked me to hand it to one poorer than himself. I also asked him about your friend Paul. He had known him slightly. He seems to have been a tent maker, who gave up his profession that he might preach the words of a loving and forgiving God, Who was so very different from that Jehovah of whom the Jewish priests are telling us all the time. Afterwards, Paul appears to have travelled much in Asia Minor and in Greece, telling the slaves that they were children of one loving Father and that happiness awaits all, both rich and poor, who have tried to live honest lives and have done good to those who were suffering and miserable78

This is the main theme of this letter as far as the subject of our present discussion is concerned.

On pondering on this letter one may easily understand which direction Christianity had taken - among the Israelites - soon after ‘Īsā (a.s.). Clearly it was a prophetic mission of a messenger sent by Allāh - not a claim of divinity calling people to believe that God had taken a human form and descended to the earth to deliver mankind by offering an atonement for their sins.

Then some disciples of ‘Īsā and/or those claiming connection with him, like Paul, and the disciples of disciples journeyed - after the said crucifixion - to various regions of the world, like India, Africa, Rome, etc., and spread the message of Christianity. But soon after that, in the wake of those missionary activities, they differed among themselves about the basic teachings of the new religion. Was Christ a God? Was belief in Christ enough for salvation without any need of following the Mosaic Law? Was the religion of the Gospel an independent one which had abrogated the Mosaic Law? Or, was it a part of the Mosaic religion sent merely to perfect it? In this way they divided into various sects and groups.79

We should keep in mind the fact that all the nations where Christianity was propagated in the beginning - like Rome and India, etc.

- were at that time idol-worshippers, the Sabaeans, the Hindus or the Buddhists, etc. Also there was some mystic influence on one side and the hold of Brahmanic philosophy on the other. All these systems and religions believed to a great extent in incarnation and appearance of gods and deities in human form. Also the beliefs of trinity in unity, coming down of a deity in human body, and its suffering and being crucified80 to atone sins of mankind was very much prevalent among ancient idolworshippers of India, China, Egypt, Chaledonia, Assyria and Iran. The same was the situation among ancient western idolators like Romans, Scandinavians and others - as may be seen in the books written about ancient religions and beliefs.

Doane writes in his Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions:

‘‘If we return to India we shall find that one of the most prominent features in the Indian theology is the doctrine of a divine triad, governing all things. This triad is called Tri-murti - from the Sanscrit (sic.) word tri (three) and murti (form) - and consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva.

It is an inseparable unity, though three in form.’’81

Then he goes on to explain that Brahma is the Father; Vishnu, the Son; and Siva, the Holy Spirit.82

Then he writes [in the footnote] about Vishnu, the Son that he is ‘‘the Lord and Saviour Chrishna83 . The Supreme Spirit, in order to preserve the world, produced Vishnu. Vishnu came upon earth, for this purpose, in the form of Chrishna. He was believed to be an incarnation of the Supreme Being, one of the persons of their holy and mysterious trinity, to use their language, ‘The Lord and Saviour - three persons and one god.’ ’’84

He writes that like the Christians, the Hindus too use the dove for the emblem of the third person of their trinity.85

[Doane further writes:]

‘‘Mr. Faber, in his Origin of Heathen Idolatry, says: ‘Among the Hindoos, we have the Triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva; so, among the votaries of Buddha, we find the self-triplicated Buddha declared to be the same as the Hindoo Trimurti. Among the Buddhist sect of the Jainists (sic.), we have the triple jiva, in whom the Trimurti is similarly declared to be incarnated.’ ’’86

[Doane further quotes from the same book of Mr. Faber:]

‘‘Among the Chinese, who worship Buddha under the name of Fo, we find this God mysteriously multiplied into three persons ’’87

Doane now turns to Egypt:

‘‘The priests of Memphis, in Egypt, explained this mystery to the novice, by intimating that the premier (first) monad created the dyad, who engendered the triad, and that it is this triad which shines through nature.

‘‘Thulis, a great monarch, who at one time reigned over all Egypt, and who was in the habit of consulting the oracle of Serapis, is said to have addressed the oracle in these words:

‘‘ ‘Tell me if ever there was before one greater than I, or will ever be one greater than me?’

‘‘The oracle answered thus:

‘‘ ‘First God, afterward the Word, and with them the Holy Spirit, all these are of the same nature, and make but one whole, of which the power is eternal. Go away quickly, mortal, thou who hast but an uncertain life.’ ’’88

Doane quotes Bonwick:

‘‘Some persons are prepared to admit that the most astonishing development of the old religion of Egypt was in relation to the Logos or Divine Word, by whom all things were made, and who, though from God, was God.’’89

It should be noted that these are the very words with which the Gospel of St. John begins.90

Doane quotes from Higgins Anacalypsis that: ‘‘Mithras, the Mediator, and Saviour of the Persians, was called the Logos.’’91

Doane has proved that the ancient pagans used to believe in one god with three persons. He has extensively shown that the pagan belief of trinity in unity was prevalent among the Greeks, Romans, Finns, Scandinavians, Chaldeans, Assyrians and Phoenicians.92

[On the question of atonement], he writes:

‘‘The idea of expiation by the sacrifice of a god was to be found among the Hindoos even in Vedic times.’’93

Then giving the references, he, inter alia, writes.

‘‘Crishna, the virgin-born, ‘‘the Divine Vishnu himself’94 , ‘he who is without beginning, middle or end’95 , being moved ‘to relieve the earth of her load’96 , came upon earth and redeemed man by his suffering - to save him.’’97

‘‘In the earlier copies of Moor’s, Hindu Pantheon, is to be seen representations of Chrishna (as Wittoba) with marks of holes in both feet, and in others, of holes in the hands. [In Figures 4 and 5 of Plate II (Moor’s work) the figures have nail-holes in both feet. Figure 6 has a round hole in the side;] to his collar or shirt hangs the emblem of a heart (which we often see in pictures of Christ Jesus) Instead of the crown of thorns usually put on the head of the Christians Saviour, it [Figure 7] has the turreted coronet of the Ephesian Diana ...’’98

Doane quotes Huc that among the Hindus, ‘‘the idea of redemption by a divine incarnation, who came into the world for the express purpose of redeeming mankind, was ‘general and popular.’ ’’99

‘‘ ‘A sense of original corruption,’ says Professor Monier Williams, ‘seems to be felt by all classes of Hindoos, as indicated by the following prayer used after the Gayatri by some Vaishnavas.

‘‘ ‘ ‘‘I am sinful, I commit sin, my nature is sinful, I am conceived in sin. Save me, O thou lotus-eyed Heri (Saviour), the remover of sin.’’ ’ ’’100

Rev. Geo. W. Cox remarks on two opposite conceptions of Krishna’s character, in one of which he is described ‘‘as a selfsacrificing and unselfish hero’’, who is, ‘‘filled with divine wisdom and love, who offers up a sacrifice which he alone can make.’’101

‘‘P. Andrada la Crozius, one of the first Europeans who went to Nepal and Thibet (sic.), in speaking of the god whom they worshipped there - Indra - tells us that they said he spilt his blood for the salvation of the human race, and that he was pierced through the body with nails.

He further says that, although they do not say he suffered the penalty of the cross, yet they find, nevertheless, figures of it in their books.’’102

‘‘The monk Georgius, in his Tibetinum Alphabetum (p. 203), has given plates of a crucified god, who was worshipped in Nepal He calls it the god Indra.’’ [Figure 9 of these plates] shows a cross having arms of equal length fixed much high on the stem; Thus the head portion is shorter and the body portion longer - no one would think that it represented a man except for the image of face on it.103

What the Buddhists narrate about Buddha fits even more perfectly on what the Christians believe about Jesus Christ. The Buddhists call Buddha, the Messiah, the Only Begotten, the Saviour of the World, the God who sacrificed his life to wash away the offences of mankind, and thereby to make them partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven104 .

This subject has been explained by many orientalists, like Bell105 , Huc, Muller106 , and others107 .

This was a sample of the belief of deities taking human form, and of crucifixion and atonement as it was found in ancient religions prevalent in the nations among which Christianity was propagated in the very beginning. The new religion very much attracted the people in all these places where the Christian missionaries went. And the reason was clear: The Christian Fathers took the fundamentals of Christianity and remoulded them in the moulds of idolatry, and in this way got the people attracted to their call and made it easier to them to accept their teachings.

This view is strengthened when we see how Paul and others disparage the wisdom and philosophy of the philosophers, and how they look down with disdain at rational argument, declaring that the Lord God prefers the foolishness of the fools to the wisdom of the wise.

The fact is that they presented their teaching to the schools of logic and philosophy, and the intellectuals rejected it saying that there was no way of even understanding it - let alone accepting it. To overcome this difficulty, they started talking of revelation, apocalypse and vision; and claimed that they were filled of the Holy Ghost. In this, they followed the life of the ignorant mystics who claim that their way is beyond the reach of reason and intellect. Thereafter, their missionaries went to various cities and regions (as described in the Acts of Apostles and the history books) and propagated the Christianity. Wherever they went, the masses welcomed them. The main reason of their success - and especially within the Roman Empire - was the simmering discontent and disgruntling despair which had spread everywhere because of the never-ending oppression and injustice; the ruling class treated the masses as their slaves and serfs; there was a yawning gap between the lives of the rulers and the ruled, an unbridgeable chasm between the high and the low classes; the extravagant life-style of the rich was sustained by the sweat and blood of the poor and slaves. In this social structure, the Christian missionaries called the people to brotherhood, love, equality and good neighbourliness; they exhorted them to discard this world and its transient painful life and to concentrate on the pure and happy life that was in heaven. It was this theme which the ruling classes - the kings and emperors - found advantageous to themselves, and they thought that it was in their interest to turn a blind eye to the missionaries’

activities; as a general rule, this tacit understanding saved the new group from punishment, torture and banishment.

Their number kept increasing, and so did their power. A great multitude embraced Christianity within and outside the Roman Empire; it reached upto Africa and even India. Invariably opening of a church heralded the closure or destruction of a temple. With number and power, their attitude changed. Not only that they disregarded the resistance of the pagan leaders (as they went on undermining idol-worship), they even refused obeisance to the rulers and emperors. Their refusal to obey imperial decrees in this respect resulted in their punishment, imprisonment and even murder. Many were tortured and killed; others imprisoned or banished.

This continued until the Emperor Constantine came on throne. He accepted Christianity and recognized it as the State religion. Churches were built in Rome and throughout the empire. It was in the second half of the fourth century of Christian Era.108

From then on the Church of Rome became the centre of Christianity.

Bishops and missionaries were sent to all regions and countries within the Roman Empire. Countless churches, monastries and seminaries (to teach Christianity) were built.

There is an important point which the reader should ponder on: All their talks and discussions begin on some evangelical postulates, like the theme of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the scheme of crucifixion and atonement, and similar other principles. They base their talks on these ideas as though they were self-evident truths - and then go on building their edifice on them. They do not realize that it is their first and basic weakness. No matter how strong and lofty a structure may be, it cannot make up for the weakness of the foundation. And the foundation on which they have built their edifice - the three-in-one theology and the crucifixion and atonement - is simply incomprehensible.

Many Christian scholars agree that it is an idea that cannot be understood. Still they say that it is a religious tenet, therefore, it must be believed without asking for reason - after all, there are many things in religion which the reason says are impossible.

But it is one of the invalid ideas which spring from that invalid base.

How can there be an impossible principle in the religion of truth? As far as we are concerned, it is through reason and understanding that we accept a religion and discern its truth and validity. How can a true belief contain something which reason invalidates? Is it not a contradiction in term?

Of course, religion accepts validity of miracles - the things which are possible in reason but impracticable; but an idea impossible in reason can never happen.

However, the above-mentioned way of ‘‘argument’’ led their thinkers and scholars into conflicts, discords and disagreements in the very early days when the students gathered to learn Christianity at Alexanderia, Rome and other places.

The church increased its watchdog role to preserve the unity of creed.

Whenever a differing view was expressed or new idea raised its head, the church called a council of the bishops and presbyters to convince the party concerned to leave their ideas and beliefs; and if they persisted they were anathematized, banished or even killed.

The first such council was held in Nicea, to counter the views of Arius109 , who said that the Son was not like the Father, that only God was eternal while Christ was a created being.

The bishops, and presbyters assembled at Constantinople, in presence of the Emperor Constantine; they were three hundred and thirteen in number. They adopted the following creed:

We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnated from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father and will come again with glory to judge

living and dead, of whose Kingdom there will be no end; And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; in one holy Catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism to the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead110 , and the life of the world to come111 . Amen !

That was the first Council; after that numerous Councils were held to anathematize newly appearing schisms, like the Nestorians, Jacobites,الاليانية Ilyanites [?],اليليارسية Yalyarsites112 [?], Macedonians113 , Noetus114 , Sabellians115 , Paulianists116 , (or Paulicians)117 , and many others.

The Church continued to progress becoming stronger day by day. On the other hand, the Barbarians of the North were attacking the Roman Empire every now and then. The wars and internal strifes and unrest weakened the Empire - until a time came when the people of Rome together with the victorious tribes decided to hand over the affairs of the State to the Church. Now the Pope of the time, Gregory the Great119 , had in his hand the reins of the temporal as well as the spiritual powers. It was in 590 C.E.

Consequently, the Church of Rome acquired absolute power over the Christians world. But by that time the Roman Empire had divided in two parts: the Western Roman Empire with its capital at Rome and the Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire with its capital at Constantinople.

The Byzantine Emperors claimed for themselves the headship of Church within their domain, without accepting the authority of the Church of Rome. This led to the division of Christianity between the Catholics - the followers of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox, i.e., others.

The things continued in this manner, until the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, and Palaeologus, the last Byzantine Emperor and Head of the Eastern (i.e. Orthoxod) Church, was killed in the Cathedral, Hagia Sophia119 .

The Tzars of Russia now claimed the headship of the Church - as a legacy of the Byzantine Emperors to whom they were related by marriage. (Russia had been Christian since the tenth century.) The Russian Emperors thus became he Heads of the (Orthodox) Church in their land, independent of the (Catholic) Church of Rome. It was in 1454 C. E.

The things continued in this way for about five centuries, until the last Tzar, Nicholas, was killed, with all his family, in 1918, by the Communists. Thus the Church of Rome almost returned to the condition that prevailed before the division.

Meanwhile, during the Middle Ages when the Vatican had reached the highest point of its glory and the Popes controlled every aspect of the people’s lives, a lot of good Christians revolted against the Vatican in order to free themselves from the shackles which the Church had put on them.

One group refused to follow the Church of Rome or to obey the Popes, but they continued to accept the religion as interpreted by the Councils and agreed upon by their scholars. They are called the [Greek] Orthodox. Another group discarded the Roman Church altogether; they neither accept the said Church’s interpretation of religion nor do they recognized the Pope’s authority in any religious matter. They are the Protestants.

In this way, the Christians world is mainly divided into three sects: the Catholics who follow the Vatican and its teachings; the Orthodox, who accept the Catholic teachings but do not recognize the authority of the Vatican. As described above, this group resulted from the division of the Church [on the line of the Western and Eastern empires] and especially after the transfer of the Patriarchate from Constantinople to Moscow; and the Protestants, who recognize neither the authority of Vatican nor its teachings - they became independent in the fifteenth century of the Christian Era.

This is, in a nut-shell, the history of the Christian Church of the last two millenniums. Those who know the main theme of our book, will understand why we have written here this short account of their history. Our aim was three-fold:

First: To provide to a research scholar an insight into various changes taking place in the religion of the Christians; and to make them aware as to how alien ideas have been implanted in their beliefs and rituals; how pagan superstitions and idolatrous thoughts have crept into Christianity - by hereditary influences, or social give and take, or wilful adoption, or just because old habits die-hard.

Second: The power of the Church - and especially the Church of Rome - gradually increased until it reached its zenith in the Middle Ages; the Popes had taken both temporal and spiritual powers in their hands, and the kings and emperors in Europe had to submit to the Papal decrees, and pay homage to the Popes. The Popes put on throne whomsoever they wished and removed whoever they wished120 .

It is narrated that the Pope once ordered the German emperor to stand barefoot on the door of the Papal Palace for three days (in the winter) - for expiation of some mistakes which he beseeched the Pope to forgive121 .

On another occasion, the Pope kicked with his foot the crown of a king who had approached him kneeling down to seek Papal pardon122 .

Those church leaders had described the Muslims to their followers in a way that the Christians were bound to regard Islam as a religion of idolworshippers.

You will see it in the slogans and poems which were written to incite and arouse the Christians against the Muslims during the Crusades which raged between the two powers for long years.

The Christians were led to believe123 that the Muslims worshipped idols; that they believed in three gods: (1) Māhom (who is also calledافوميد Afomed [?] and Mahounde), he is the first among gods and he is Muhammad; (2) Apoline who is the second; and (3) Tervagān who is the third. Others added two more to this list:مارتوان to Māratwān [?] and Jupiter; but their rank was below the first three. They said that Muhammad’s religion was based on his claim of divinity - that he claimed to be god. Sometimes the ‘‘information’’ was added that Muhammad had taken for himself an idol made of gold.

Richard composed poems to incite the Franks against the Muslims, in which he, inter alia, says: ‘‘Arise and dislodge Mahound and Tervagan and throw them into fire, so that you may get near your God.’’

Roland described Mahom, the ‘‘god of Muslims’’, in a poem, in which he says: ‘‘It is made of gold and silver; if you see it, you will know that no artisan can even imagine a more beautiful face, let alone make it; big in size, admirable in workmanship, majesty radiating from its features, Māhom is made of gold and silver, its brilliant splendour dazzles the eyes to blindness; it has been placed on an elephant which is the finest work of art; its stomach is hollow, and an onlooker may find lustrous light glowing from it (because) it is set with precious brilliant gems, (it is transparent, and) its inside may be seen from outside; its fine workmanship is matchless.

‘‘The gods of Muslims used to inspire them at times of trouble and turmoil. The Muslims were once defeated in a battle; so their commander sent someone to call their god who was in Mecca (i.e., Muhammad, s.a.w.a.). An ‘eye-witness’ says that the god (i.e., Muhammad, s.a.w.a.)

came to them; a huge mob of his followers surrounded him; they were beating drums, playing lutes and blowing pipes and bagpipes made of silver; singing and dancing around him they brought him to the battleground, they were full of joy and happiness, making merry. His deputy was waiting for him; when he arrived (the deputy) stood up and began worshipping him with humbleness and humility.’’

Richard explains the revelation sent by the god, Māhom, in this manner: ‘‘The sorcerers captured a genie and put it in the stomach of that idol. That genie used to thunder and hammer inside and then speak to the Muslims, who listened to him with rapt attention.’’

Such droll flippancies are found in a lot of their books written during, or about, the Crusades. Our readers will, no doubt, be astounded and scandalized to read such accounts of their pure religion - may be some would even doubt the authenticity of these quotations. After all, they have ascribed such things to Islam that no one has ever seen in his life, nor has any Muslim imagined them or even dreamt of them124 .

Third: A deep thinker may easily recognize the changes that have occurred in the Christianity during the past twenty centuries. The idolatrous beliefs crept imperceptibly into Christianity: first it was excessive reverence for Christ; then his message was cast into the mould of trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), which was further developed in the theory of crucifixion and atonement, which in its turn gave rise to the belief that law and its obedience was not needed at all, the faith was sufficient for salvation.

At first it appeared in religious garb; the Church insisted on some religious rites like prayer, fast and baptism. But opposite trends continued to grow and various ideas raised their heads, until the Protestantism appeared on the scene; the political turmoil and unrest gave way to formal secular laws based on the principle of freedom in the matters which were not covered by those laws. In this way, the teachings of religion became weaker and weaker, and continued to give ground to anti-religion forces, until moral values and virtuous conduct could not stand the onslaught of materialism which ‘‘the unrestricted freedom’’ had let loose on humanity.

Then appeared socialism and communism, based on Dialectic Materialism; belief in God and adherence to moral virtues and religious rites and deeds were discarded. Spiritual humanism was succeeded by materialistic animality composed of only two instincts: greed to gain for oneself whatever one desires and impulse to crush down whoever comes in one’s way. Today the world is speeding to that animalistic goal, to its doom.

Various new religious revival movements that have lately appeared everywhere are but political games invented and played by political groups, who want to attain their goals through them. We know that politics, as a profession, now knocks at every door and uses every conceiveable device to realize its aims.

According to Dr. Joseph Sittler, of Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary, the underlying weakness of the current U. S. religious revival is that it seeks to give divine sanction to the cultural values modern man lives by. ‘We make God say amen to what we believe, instead of saying amen to God.’ The greatest danger, he feels, is that this pious self-flattery may immunize Americans against any desire to join in a genuine relgious revival if one should arise125 .

According to Dr. Georges Florovsky, the ‘foremost U. S. spokesman for Russian Orthodoxy’, Christian teaching, which reaches most Americans through sentimental literature, consoles them instead of

awakening them through deeply felt or ‘witnessed’ experience126 .

Whence the caravan of religion started from, and where has it arrived? The message began in the name of revival of religion (i.e., belief), morality (i.e., virtuous character) and the sharī‘ah (good deeds); and ended up by repudiating and abolishing all of it, replacing it with animalistic enjoyment.

This has happened because of the first deviation affected by St. Paul the Apostle and his disciples. We are living in a civilization that admittedly threatens mankind with extinction. Some people say that Christ is the leader and standard-bearer of the modern civilization. But it would be nearer to truth to call it the Paulian civilization.

TRADITIONS

al-Qummī narrates about the verse: It is not meet for a man that Allāh should give him the Book and the Wisdom and Prophethood, then he should say to men, ‘‘Be my servants rather than Allāh’s’’. ‘‘Surely ‘Īsā did not say to men: ‘I have created you, therefore you should be my servants rather than Allāh’s’, rather he said to them: ‘Be worshippers of the Lord’, that is, having true knowledge.’’ (at-Tafsīr)

The author says: The context and associations given in the Commentary support this explanation. ‘‘Surely ‘Īsā did not say to men: ‘I have created you.’ ’’ It is a sort of a proof to show that he had not said it.

Had he told them to worship him, it would have been necessary to tell them that he was their creator; but he had not said it, nor had he created them.

The same exegete narrates about the verse: Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords. ‘‘There were people who worshipped the angels; the Christians thought ‘Īsā was the Lord; and the Jews said that ‘Uzayr was the Son of God. Allāh therefore said that no prophet would enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for Lords.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: It has been explained in the Commentary.

It is narrated in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr from Ibn Ishāq, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Hātim and al-Bayhaqī (in his Dalā’ilu ’n-Nubuwwah) from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘When the Jewish scholars and Christians of Najrān gathered near the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and he invited them to Islam, Abū Rāfi‘ al-Qurazī said: ‘Do you wish, O Muhammad, that we should worship you as the Christians worship ‘Īsā son of Maryam?’

Thereupon a Christian of Najrān said: ‘Well, do you want this from us, O Muhammad?’ The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘I seek refuge in Allāh that we should worship other than Allāh, or that we should enjoin worship of someone else; He has neither sent me with it nor has He enjoined me this.’

Therefore, Allāh, revealed the verses (because of their question): It is not meet for a man ...

after you are Muslims (submitting ones)?’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

It is reported in the same book: ‘‘ ‘Abd ibn Hamid has narrated from al-Hasan that he said: ‘I have been told that a man said: ‘‘O Messenger of Allāh! We greet you (exatly) as we greet each other. Should not we prostrate before you?’’ He said: ‘‘No. But you should honour your Prophet, and recognize the right of the ones having that right; because prostration should not be done for anyone other than Allāh.’’ Then Allāh revealed the verses: It is not meet for a man after you are Muslims (submitting ones)?’ ’’ (ibid.)

The author says: Also other events have been narrated concerning revelation of these verses. Obviously, all of them are based on academic inferences: and we have discussed in detail about them. Also, it is possible for various reasons to combine in relation to one verse. And Allāh knows better.

* * * * *