مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْحُكْمَ وَٱلنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا۟ عِبَادًا لِّى مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَـٰكِن كُونُوا۟ رَبَّـٰنِيِّـۧنَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَبِمَا كُنتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ

“It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men: “Be my servants rather than Allah’s;” but rather (he would say): “Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)” (3:79).

وَلَا يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَن تَتَّخِذُوا۟ ٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةَ وَٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ أَرْبَابًا أَيَأْمُرُكُم بِٱلْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ

“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)?” (3:80).

Commentary

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

‘Isa (‘a) was not as you think about him. Neither was he Lord nor had he claimed Lordship for himself. First, 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), he had no father, thus his likeness was with Allah as the likeness of Adam. Second, 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 Allah.

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

Verse 79

Qur’an: “It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood, then he should say to men: ‘Be my servants rather than Allah’…” (3:79).

“al-Bashar” ( اَلْبَشَرُ = man) is synonymous with “al-insan” ( اَلْاِنْسَانُ ); it is used for singular as well as plural; one man is al-bashar and also a group of men is al-bashar.

Ma kana li basharin ( مَا كَانَ 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 Allah should give him the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood” (3:79), is the subject of kana ( كَانَ = was; is). It prepares the ground for the next statement; “then he should say to men; ‘Be my servants rather than Allah’s.’ ” (3:79). Apparently, the sentence could be shortened by omitting the introductory clause, “that Allah should give him the Book...” (3:79); yet it was inserted to give a new connotation to the phrase, “It is not meet for a man” (3:79).

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 Allah 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 Allah describes the declaration of ‘Isa (‘a), in the verse:

“And when Allah will say: O ‘Isa son of Maryam! did you say to men, ‘take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah’, 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 Allah should give him...” (3:79) instead of saying: a man whom Allah gave the Book and the Judgment and Prophethood. The reason for that 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 Allah should give him....” (3:79), shows that such behaviour is definitely impossible. The Divine Guidance and upbringing cannot fail to attain its goal, as Allah says:

“These are they whom We gave the Book and the Judgment and the Prophethood, therefore if these1disbelieve 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 Allah’s. In this context the verse resembles to a certain extent these verses:

“The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself” (4:172).

“Then as for those who believe and do good, He will pay them fully their rewards and give them more out of His grace; 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 Allah a guardian or a helper” (4:173).

The implication is that the Messiah and the angels who are near to Allah are too high in prestige and too great in status to disdain the worship of Allah; because disdaining His worship brings painful chastisement on the culprit; and far be it from Allah 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” (3:79); 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. Togetherness 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 Allah’s” (3:79): al-‘Ibad ( اَلْعِبَادُ ) like al-‘abid ( اَلْعَبِيْدُ ) is plural of al-‘abd ( اَلْعَبْدُ = slave; servant); the difference between the two plurals is in usage; al-‘ibad is mostly used in relation to Allah, for example, ‘ibadu’llah ( عِبَادُ اللّهِ = slaves/servants of Allah); while al ‘abid is generally used when related to man; they say, ‘abid an-nas ( عَبِيْدُ النَّاسِ = slaves/servants of men), and not ‘ibad an-nas ( عِبَادُ النَّاسِ )

The proviso “rather than Allah’s” has been added after the words, “my servants”, as a matter of necessity. Allah does not accept any worship unless it is purely for His own person. Allah says:

“Now, surely, sincere religion (obedience) is for Allah (alone); and (as for) those who take guardians besides Him, (saying), “We do not worship them save that they may make us nearer to Allah”, surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful” (39:3).

Thus, Allah has rejected outright the worship of those who join worship of others with His worship, even if the others are worshipped merely as intercessors and intermediaries, and only with intention of reaching nearness to Allah 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 Allah 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 Allah, even if Allah is worshipped with him.

Qur’an: “…But rather (he would say): “Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves)” (3:79).

“ar-Rabbani” ( 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-lihyani ( اَللِّحْيِانِيُّ ) for one having a luxuriant beard. Thus ar-rabbani means the one having special relationship with the Lord and spending his life in His servitude and worship. Bi ( بِ ) in bi-ma ( بِمَا ) is causative, and means “because”; while ma ( 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)’” (3:79).

ad-Dirasah ( 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-Raghib says: “Darasa ’d-dar ( دَرَسَ الدَّارُ = vestiges of the house remained); it implies that the house itself was obliterated; and for this reason ad-durus ( اَلدُّرُوْسُ ) is translated as obliteration. Likewise, darasa ’l-kitab ( 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. Allah says:

“..And they have read what is in it...” (7:169).

“And We have not given them any books which they read, nor did We send to them before you a warner” (34:44).

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-ma kuntum ( بِمَا كُنْتُمْ = 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 ‘Isa 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. ‘Isa (‘a) was sent only to explain to them a part of what they differed in and to allow them part of that which was forbidden to 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 Allah (S) - because his mission covered the People of the Book too, who used to teach and read the Book of Allah - but ‘Isa (‘a) 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 Allah (S).

So far as other ‘Ul Al-’Adhm prophets (who came with a Book), i.e., Nuh, Ibrahim and Musa are concerned, the verse obviously cannot be applied to them.

Verse 80

Qur’an: “Or that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lord...” (3:80).

The verb “aw ya’murakum” ( اَوْيَأْمُرَكُمْ = 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 Ibrahim (‘a), said that the angels were Allah’s daughters.

As for taking the prophets for lords, the Jews, for instance, said that ‘Uzayr was the son of Allah - as the Qur’an quotes them - although Musa (‘a) had not allowed it to them, nor was there in the Torah anything other than monotheism. Had Musa (‘a) 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 Allah’s’ ” (3:79), 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” (3:80). First, the subject matter in the former is worship of other than Allah, and in the latter it is taking them for lords. Second, the people enjoined 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 ‘Isa. As is known, they believe in his godhead literally, saying that he had invited them to the worship of his own self. Thus, they have clearly ascribed this call to ‘Isa 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 ‘Isa) is opposed to the belief of monotheism only by implication, not directly. That is why the latter verse uses the word, “lords”, instead of gods.

Second: Both expressions (‘Be my servants’ and ‘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 ‘Isa was supposed to say it.

It is for this reason that the verse says, “he should say to men” (3:79), 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 person enjoined is absent. An order given to, or a matter connected with the ancestors, is also applicable 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...” (3:80) - but exception was made in the first verse owing to special reasons.

Qur’an: “…What! Would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims (Submitting Ones)?” (3:80).

Apparently, the question is directed to all who followed a prophet like the People of the Book or those who claimed to do so like the Arabs of the days of Ignorance who believed that they were on the religion of Ibrahim. 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 Allah, 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 Allah?

It is clear from the above explanation that in this verse, Islam refers to the religion of monotheism; the religion which Allah 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 Allah is Islam...” (3:19).

“Is it then other than Allah’s religion that they seek (to follow)...” (3:83).

“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” (3:85).

An exegete has said that the two verses under discussion refer to the Messenger of Allah (S). His view is based on a tradition (quoted earlier) describing the circumstances of its revelation which says that Abu Rafi‘ al-Qurazi and a Najranite Christian said to the Messenger of Allah (S): “Do you want us to worship you? O Muhammad!” Then Allah revealed: “It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him…” (3:79) and “... after you are Muslims?” (3:80). Then the said exegete has argued by the last phrase, ‘after you are Muslims’; “because Islam is the religion brought by Muhammad (S).”

Comment: He has confused the Islam of Qur’anic 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 this earlier).

Conclusion - Seven Parts

1. The Story Of ‘Isa and His Mother In The Qur’an

Maryam, daughter of ‘Imran, 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.

Maryam’s father, ‘Imran, had died before she was born; so, the mother brought her to the Temple for handing her over to the priests - Zakariyya 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 Zakariyya’s name was drawn; and he became her guardian. When she reached the age of puberty, Zakariyya made for her a partition to protect her from men’s eyes.

She used to worship Allah therein and nobody entered that sanctuary except Zakariyya. Whenever Zakariyya 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 Allah, and surely Allah gives sustenance to whom He pleases, without measure.”

Maryam was a truthful woman, and was sinless by Allah’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 Allah for the worlds.2

Then Allah 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 Allah, 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 Allah would surely strengthen him by the Holy Spirit, and would teach him the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah and the Injil. 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 ‘Isa (‘a), as a woman conceives her child.3

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 Beneficent God, so I shall not speak to any man today.’ “And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her).4 His conception, birth, speech, and all related affairs were not similar to those of other ordinary 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 Harun! 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 Allah; 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 zakat 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.”5

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

‘Isa (‘a) 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 up to the end.

Then ‘Isa (‘a) 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 Allah’s permission, and I heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead to life, with Allah’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 Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore, worship Him only.”

He called them to his new Shari‘ah, which verified the Law of Musa (‘a); but he abrogated some parts of it, allowing them certain things which were forbidden in the Torah as a punishment to the Jews. ‘Isa (‘a) 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 Allah 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 Allah’s permission.

He continued like that calling them to monotheism and his new Shari‘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 Allah.

Then the Jews rose against him with the intention to kill him. But Allah took him away completely and raised him. The Jews were put in confusion: some thought that they had killed him, others thought that they had crucified him; but in fact, it was made to appear to them like that.6

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

2. Position Of ‘Isa Before Allah and In His Own Eyes

‘Isa (‘a) was a servant of Allah and a prophet7; a messenger to the Children of Israel8; was one of the five ‘Ul Al-’Adhm prophets, bringing a new Shari‘ah and a Book, i.e., Injil 9; Allah named him the Messiah, ‘Isa10; he was the Word of Allah and a Spirit from Him11; an Imam12; one of the witnesses of deeds13; he brought the good news of the Messenger of Allah (S)14; was worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter, and one of those who are made near to Allah15; was one of the chosen progenies16; one of the selected and righteous ones17; was made blessed wherever he might be, and purified; was a sign to the people, a mercy from Allah, and dutiful to his mother; greeted himself with peace18; and was among those whom Allah taught the Book and the Wisdom.19

These twenty-two characteristics, from the stations of al-wilayah (اَلْوِلَايَةُ = friendship and guardianship of Allah), give the gist of the attributes which Allah 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 Allah.

(2) Those bestowed by Allah as His special grace.

We have explained each characteristic in relevant places of this book according to our understanding. Any reader seeking for more details should look up in those volumes.

3. What ‘Isa Said, And What Was Said About Him?

The Qur’an says that ‘Isa (‘a) was Allah’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. Allah says:

“And when Allah will say: “O ‘Isa son of Maryam! did you say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah’ “, 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” (5:116).

“I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That worship Allah, 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” (5:117).

“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” (5:118).

“Allah will say: This is the day when their truth shall benefit the truthful ones; they shall have gardens beneath which rivers flow to abide in them for ever: Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Allah; this is the mighty achievement” (5:119).

This wonderful reply contains the essence of servitude and shows outstanding manner; it is a mirror of ‘Isa’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 Allah, and he did not tell them except what he was enjoined with: That worship Allah, 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 Allah 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 ‘Isa shall be among the intercessors on the Day of Resurrection, he shall intercede, and his intercession will be honoured and accepted?

Answer: The Qur’an says expressly - or almost expressly - that he is an intercessor. Allah 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 (‘Isa) shall be a witness against them” (4:159).

“…And when I taught you the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Injil …” (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 Allah - as we shall explain later. It is the idea of atonement which the above-mentioned talk of ‘Isa (‘a) refutes.

But this verse has nothing to do with intercession - it neither confirms it nor rejects it. Had the verse wanted to confirm it - despite its inconsistency20 with the context - it should have said: If Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely, Thou art the Forgiving, the Merciful. And if it wanted to refute intercession, it should not have mentioned his being a witness for the people. We shall describe in detail this topic later, Allah willing.

Looking at what the people said about ‘Isa (‘a), we find that they were divided after him into various sects and disintegrated into 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’an concerns itself only with what they say about ‘Isa (‘a) and his mother, because it affects the foundation of monotheism which is the only goal to which the Qur’an calls and the natural straight religion leads. The Book of Allah 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’an ascribes to them (or quotes them) are as follows:

“…And the Christians say: “The Messiah is the son of Allah” (9:30).

“And they say: “The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son”…” (21:26).

“Certainly they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah, is the Messiah, son of Maryam”…” (5:72).

“Certainly they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah is the third of the three” ...” (5:73).

“...And say not, Three...” (4:171).

Apparently, these verses contain different phrases, describe different beliefs. (That is why some people 21 apply various verses to various sects, for example, the Melkites22 who believe in real sonship; the Nestorians23 who explain ancestry and sonship as radiance of light on a transparent body like crystal; and the Jacobites,24 who explain it in the terms of change and transformation, that is, the God was transformed into flesh and blood.)

But evidently the Qur’an 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 ‘Isa 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’an 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 Allah; 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)25

“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 Allah as the Father of ‘Isa 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 that 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, baptizing 26them 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.” (Mark, 12/29)

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’an ascribes to the Christians, or quotes them as saying:

“And the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah” (9:30).

“Certainly, they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Maryam” (5:72).

“Certainly, they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah 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 that sprang up in the Christianity (as we have said above).

Why did the Qur’an focus on this common factor? It was because the same objections apply to all their beliefs regarding ‘Isa (‘a) - despite their diversity and numerousness. The arguments put forward by the Qur’an are applicable to all their interpretations with equal force, as will be explained later.

4. Argument of The Qur’an Against The Belief Of Trinity

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

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

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

First Method: What is the quiddity of sonship and birth? What do these words really mean? A living material thing (like man, animal, or plant) 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 does. 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 that is similar to its parent. This is what sonship and birth mean. It is no secret that such a thing is impossible for Allah for a few reasons.

The first reason is that such process needs a physical material body; and Allah is far above matter and its concomitants without which matter cannot exist like motion, time, space, and other such things.

The second reason is that to Allah belongs absolute Divinity and Lordship; consequently, He has absolute authority over all things, and total management of all things is in His hand. Everything is in need of Him to bring it into existence and everything depends on Him for its continued existence. It is just impossible to imagine a thing similar to Allah in “species” - a being having the identity, attributes and characteristics similar to those of Allah and independent of Him.

The third reason is, if Allah begets or gives birth to a son, it entails graduality of action for Allah. In other words, He would be governed by the laws of matter and movement; and it is a 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 Allah:

“And they say: “Allah 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” (2:116).

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

As we have explained above, the words “Glory be to Him” (2:116) are a complete proof; the clause, “whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him” (2:116) 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” (2:117) is a third proof.27

It is also possible to take the clause “The Originator of the heavens and the earth” (2:117) 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; Allah 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 homo sapiens 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 “non-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, that is 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 Allah:

“…And say not, ‘Three’. Desist, it is better for you; Allah 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 Allah is sufficient for a Protector” (4:171).

Second Method: ‘Isa 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) 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 his 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 ‘Isa (‘a) 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 Allah. 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: Salih, Ibrahim and Musa (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 these verses:

“Certainly, they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve” (5:73).

“Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (5:74).

“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” (5:75).

Eating food has been specially selected for mention in preference to other activities because it rather more forcefully proves his materiality and shows his neediness and wants, which cannot be joined 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 the 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 a self-sufficient god; rather he shall be a creature who is looked after by 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 Allah He is the Messiah, son of Maryam”. Say: “Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Maryam and his mother and all those on the earth?” And Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things” (5:17).

The same is the case with the verse (coming after 5:75 quoted above) addressing the Christians:

“Say: “Do you worship besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit?” And Allah - He is the Hearing, the Knowing” (5:76).

The basis and theme of such arguments is this: ‘Isa (‘a), 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 merely an illusion or imagination.

‘Isa (‘a), 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 Allah, his intention being to reach nearer to Allah, with humbleness and humility to the sublimity and majesty of Allah; certainly, it was not for the purpose of teaching others how to pray or for any other such aim.

The verse 4:172 argues against ‘Isa’s supposed divinity points to his prayer. Allah says:

“The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, 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” (4:172).

‘Isa’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 being 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 God by the angels clearly shows that they are not Allah’s daughters. Nor is the Holy Ghost a God because they all are worshippers of Allah and obedient to Him. Allah says:

“And they say: “The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son.” Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honoured servants” (21:26).

“They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act” (21:27).

“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” (21:28).

Moreover, the Gospels contain verses showing that the Spirit or Ghost is obedient to Allah and His messengers, following their commands, acting on their orders. There is no sense in saying that a being 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 ‘Isa’s worship of Allah proves that ‘Isa was not Allah, his call to the people to worship Allah also proves it, as the verse points out:

“Certainly, they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Maryam “; and the Messiah said: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah 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 Allah, my Lord and your Lord”, they are full of his sayings calling people to Allah and to His worship; he repeatedly declares that Allah is his Lord in Whose Hand is the management of his affairs; he openly says that Allah 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 Allah’s obedience; thus, it shall have the same connotation as the verse of the Qur’an:

“Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah...” (4:80).

5. ‘Isa 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 Allah by partaking of the forbidden tree; it was a sin that 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 Allah is Merciful and Just - both at the same time.

“This situation created a knotty problem which defied all solutions: If Allah 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 good-doer and obedient person should be rewarded for his good deeds. 28

“This problem remained unsolved until Allah 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 some time, 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.” 29 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’an has founded the Islam and its mission on monotheism, as Allah says addressing His Messenger (S):

“Say: “This is my way: I invite (you) unto Allah: with clear sight (are) I and he who follows me; and glory be to Allah; and I am not of the polytheists” (12:108).

It is the Christians’ belief despite 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’anic teachings, and to explain the difference between intercession (as confirmed by the Qur’an) and atonement (as claimed by the Christians).

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

Now let us take 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. The Qur’an refutes this idea in two ways:

1. The said prohibition was not like a binding order given by a master to his servant. It was only an advisory counsel intended for 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 about any punishment of hereafter because he had not disobeyed any compulsory legislative order which could have resulted in “punishment”.30

2. Adam (‘a) was a prophet: The Qur’an clearly says that the prophets were sinless; they were protected by Allah from committing sins and transgressing the “orders” of Allah. Logical reasons support this belief, and the Qur’an proves it.31

Second: They contend that the said sin remained with Adam. But the Qur’an 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 -him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful” (2:37).

Reason also supports, nay, proves this. Retribution of sin is a frightening and formidable thing that reason - or the master – deems as necessary for him who disobeys the command or shows obstinacy. It is from fear of punishment that legislations and laws are obeyed. Had there been no reward and punishment, the authority of the master 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 reward the obedient ones for their obedience. Likewise, it lies within his power to exercise his discretion in a way he thinks fit, within the jurisdiction of his authority. He has every right to pass over and overlook the disobedience and mistakes of wrongdoers by forgiving and pardoning 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 to erase a mistake and nullify 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 something that 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 up to the Day of Resurrection. It means that the punishment of the crime of one person was extended to the others too - those 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! 32

What the Christians say places the burden of sin on those who had nothing to do with that supposed sin. And the Qur’an rejects it when it says:

“That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another’ (53:38).

“And that there is not for man (aught) except what he strives for” (53:39).

Sound reason supports this dictum, because it is an evil to penalize someone for a sin he has not committed.)33

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’an teaches us that sins and errors are of various categories: some are major, others minor; some may be forgiven while others like polytheism shall not be forgiven except after repentance. Allah says:

“If you avoid the great sins from 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 Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases” (4:48).

Thus, Allah has taught us that some of the forbidden things, that is, sins and mistakes, are major, and others are, by implication, minor; some are not forgivable while others are forgiven. In any case, sins vary in their seriousness, and not every sin places the sinner in eternal perdition or ever-burning 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 the same; 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 with Allah, as the Qur’an has said. Obviously, going against the prohibition of partaking of a tree cannot be put in the category of disbelief in Allah or polytheism or things like that. Thus, there is no reason why it should cause an eternal punishment.34

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 that 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 it;35 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 the belief about Him is such, then it should be equally possible for Him to be subjected to all the conditions that 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 being having these attributes must be a transient being, a created being; it cannot be the Self-existing 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’an, 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 Allah (being free) from what they describe” (37:159).

We have many incontestable rational proofs to show that Allah 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 being related to physical 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 the relevant verses.

A discerning reader may easily judge between the two beliefs: Here is the Qur’an, 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 those his superstition led him to believe.

Sixth: They say that Allah sent His Son, Christ, and told him to enter 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’an; there is no need to repeat here the earlier-explained Qur’anic arguments against it.

Also, 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 being 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.”36

We find a lot of pronouncements - in similar vein - in his writings as well as in those of others. 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 live 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 act in the same way as His creatures do - because He may appear as a certain species and then would act in manners 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 weakness, life and death, want and freedom from want. Glory be to Allah 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 specialities of existence.

When one is cursed - taken away from Divine Mercy - it results in poverty, disgrace, or similar effects - in this world or the next or in both. This being the case, what is the sense of saying that God was affected 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’anic teaching is diametrically opposed to this truly amazing theory of the New Testament. Allah says:

“O men! you are the ones who stand in need of Allah, and Allah is He Who is Self-sufficient, the Praised One” (35:15).

Also, the names and attributes of Allah mentioned in the Qur’an 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 Allah.

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 someone else - who suffered all those indignities and curse, the so-called 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 ‘Isa 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 punishment in next world, or how that punishment is effected. 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 Shari‘ah about it.

But the Qur’an clearly describes all these things and teaches us these realities - as we have explained in the Commentaries these verses, “Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable..” (2:26) and “Mankind was but one nation..” (2:213). We have described therein 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 well-being; and the punishment for 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’anic 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 Shari‘ah prescribed for him by Allah, his psyche acquires some noble and praiseworthy inner traits; and if he disobeys the said Shari‘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 Allah or distance from Him. Thus, the merit and demerit of deeds are based on things that 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, Allah brings everything 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 that enacts and promulgates laws for society’s reform and development and contains directions for reaching nearer to Allah (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 Allah’s bounties; and he is qualified - in his self and in his actions - for the Divine Honour in the hereafter. All of these emanate 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 Allah or strays far away from Him. This nearness and distance are the foundations of his eternal happiness and unhappiness respectively and determine 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 Allah promulgate the laws, revealed the books, and sent the prophets and messengers? What was the logic 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 Shari‘ah (and there were countless prophets and also men of God in previous ummah who were like that, for example, the honoured prophets Ibrahim, Musa 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.37

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 the 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 legislations! 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 Shari‘ah. And He deceived Himself because, once the atonement was affected, legislation of the Shari‘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 effected - and to the later days – the ineffectiveness and futility of the Shari‘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 performing good deeds now that the problem of the original sin has been solved, and the atonement has brought about 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.38

Reply: First, it contradicts the saying of St. John referred to earlier. Second, 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 from 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 about the prophets before Musa is to shoot in the dark, to venture into terra incognita.39 Moreover, if there was any good news, it was not an invitation to believe in, and follow, him. Second, that good tiding does not solve the problem of the futility of the Shari‘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 Shari‘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. Third, the basic problem remains. They had talked about the original sin and the non-fulfilment 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 - exception for 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’an too supports these reasons. Allah 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 Allah to bestow every relevant guidance on everything, and it includes the religious guidance bestowed on man.

Then Allah 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” (2:38).

“And (as to) those who disbelieve in and belie our signs, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide.” (2:39).

It gives, in a nutshell, what various laws were to promulgate in detail up to 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).

Allah 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. Allah says:

“…And Allah is predominant over His affairs…” (12:21).

“…Surely Allah attains His purpose…” (65:3).

And Musa 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 Allah 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 Allah is quick in reckoning” (40:17).

These and similar other verses clearly show that Allah, 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 well-being, 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 Allah’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 that 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 Allah. The Divine Authority - unlike human authority, which is merely an abstracted idea and 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 Allah and continue to exist because of Him.

It is a reality, a fact; and reality and fact cannot change into non-reality, non-fact. Such a proposition cannot be imagined - let alone its ever coming into being. Allah’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 are 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.40

Allah 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 Allah in the Qur’an:

“And when Allah will say: “O ‘Isa son of Maryam! did you say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah’ “, 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).

“I did not say to them save that what Thou didst enjoin me with: ‘That worship Allah, 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” (5:117).

“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.” (5:118).

His words: “and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them…” (5:117), 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” (5:117); 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 Allah that it was His (Allah’s) discretion whether to punish them or forgive them, and that he (‘Isa - ‘a) 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 Allah...” (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’an accepts the Messiah as one of the intercessors - but not as an atonement. We have explained about “Intercession” under the verse “And be on your guard against the day when one soul shall not avail another...” (2:48). 41 We have explained therein 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 - 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 an 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. ‘Isa (‘a) is among those whom they call besides Allah. But he has the authority of intercession because he is included in the exception: Allah confirms in the Qur’an that He had taught him (‘Isa) the Book and the Wisdom, and that he (‘Isa) shall be among the witnesses on the Day of Judgment. Allah says:

“And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom” (3:48).

And Allah quotes ‘Isa 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 ‘Isa (‘a) is one of the intercessors. We have described it in detail under the following verse 2:48.

6. The Origin of These Beliefs

The Qur’an rejects the idea that these theories and beliefs were started or propagated by ‘Isa (‘a). 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. Allah says:

“And the Jews say: “‘Uzayr is the son of Allah”; and the Christians say: “The Messiah is the son of Allah” these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” (9:30).

“They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Maryam, and they were not enjoined 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)” (9:31).

Who are the unbelievers whom Allah 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 disbelieved 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.42

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’an 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’an 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 personalities 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’an, for example, the Book of Nuh, the Scriptures of Ibrahim, Torah of Musa, Injil of ‘Isa and Zabur of Dawud), but the Qur’an 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’an at all, and they do not acknowledge any of the other Books.

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

The Jewish Scripture contains 35,43 Books: five are together called the Torah of Musa44; twelve are called the Kings;45 then there are the Books of Job and Psalms of Dawud; then come three Books of Sulayman;46 and last seventeen Books called the Prophets.47

The Qur’an has not mentioned any of them except the Torah of Musa and the Zabur of Dawud.

The Christians’ Scriptures are as follows: The four Gospels (of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); the Acts of the Apostles, and several Epistles,48 and lastly the Revelation of John.

The Qur’an does not mention any of these Christians’ Books. But it says that there was a Divine Book revealed to ‘Isa son of Maryam, which was named Inji1; 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 that contain admission that ‘Isa did have a Book, Injil by name.49

Nevertheless, the Qur’an gives a hint that a portion of genuine Torah is still preserved in the Scriptures of the Jews, as is a part of genuine Injil still extant in the Scriptures of the Christians. Allah says:

“And how do they make you a judge and they have the Torah wherein is Allah’s judgment?...” (5:43).

“And of those who say: “We are Christians”, We did take their covenant, but they forgot a portion of what they were admonished with...” (5:14).

Both verses clearly imply what we have said.

Judaism And Christianity from Historical Point Of View

Judaism And Christianity From Historical Point Of View 50

1. The History of The Present Torah

The Israelites were descendants of Israel, that is, Ya‘qub. In the beginning they lived a nomadic tribal life; then the Egyptian rulers51 brought them into Egypt, where they treated them as captive slaves. This continued until Allah delivered them through Musa from the Pharaoh and his deeds.

During Musa’s time they followed the line of their Leader, that is, Musa (‘a), and thereafter Yusha’ (‘a) (Joshua). For some time 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 (Talut of the Qur’an); and then came Dawud and Sulayman (‘a).

After Sulayman the Kingdom was divided52, 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, Bayt al-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 Nebuchadnezzar 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.

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.53 Thereafter he compiled and edited the books attributed to Musa - and it is what is known today as the Torah.54

If you think over these events, you will see that the chain of narrators of today’s Torah is broken and is not connected all the way to Musa (‘a) - except through a single person, that is, Ezra. But first of all, we do not know who Ezra was; second, we do not know how much he knew of the Torah or how deep his knowledge was; third, we do not know how honest and trustworthy he was; fourth, we do not know from where he collected what he compiled as the books of the Torah; and last, 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 Musa (‘a) and the events related to him. They say that he is a mythical being who never existed. (The same theories have been advanced about ‘Isa son of Maryam. But we the Muslims cannot entertain such ideas because the Qur’an in very clear terms confirms his existence (peace be on him).

2. The Story Of ‘Isa and The Gospel

The Jews pay particular attention to their history. They have recorded the main events through which they have passed. Nevertheless, if you hunt through their books and literature, you will not come across any mention of ‘Isa son of Maryam. Jewish literature throws no light on his birth or mission, nor does it say anything about his character and life story.

It is silent about the miracles appearing on his hand; and does not say how his life on the earth 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’an mentions that the Jews had falsely accused Maryam and calumniated her regarding the birth of ‘Isa, and that they claimed to have killed ‘Isa. Allah says:

“And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Maryam a grievous calumny.” (4:156)

“And their saying: “Surely, we killed the Messiah, ‘Isa son of Maryam, the messenger of Allah”; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like ‘Isa); and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they killed him not for sure.” (4:157).

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’an 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. The 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.55 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 it.56

The Gospel of Mark: Mark was a disciple of St. Peter; he was not one of the twelve disciples of Christ. It is often said that he wrote his Gospel on Peter’s orders, and that he did not believe in divinity of Christ.57 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 Allah who brought and conveyed the Shari‘ah of Allah.58 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 today.59 He taught that mere belief in Jesus 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 Shari‘ah of the Torah.60 This was despite of the fact that Injil was revealed just as a verifier of the Torah, and had made lawful only a few things that were forbidden in Torah. ‘Isa (‘a) had come to re-establish the Shari‘ah of Torah, and to bring the deviators and transgressors back to it; he had not come to abrogate the Shari‘ah or to build the eternal felicity based on a belief devoid of action.

Luke wrote his Gospel after that of Mark, and it was after the deaths of St. 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 Prologue.61

The Gospel of John: Many Christians say that the John who wrote it was John the son of Zebedee, the fisher, one of the twelve disciples, and the one whom Jesus loved.62

They say that as Cerinthus63 and Ebionites64 and their followers thought that Jesus 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 Gospel.65

There is a difference of opinion as to 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 Alexandria66; 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 eyes67; yet others think that the Gospel of John originally contained twenty chapters and after his death the Church of Ephesus added the twenty-first.68

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 Jesus? Or was it his divinity?69

The present Gospels show that there had appeared among the Children of Israel a man named ‘Isa son of Yusuf, the carpenter; he began calling towards Allah; 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 him 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 - despite 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 obscurity.

This curious weakness just in the initial stage has compelled some independent minds of Europe to claim that Christ, ‘Isa 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 ‘Isa. (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 Christian 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)70

However, the difference of the Christians Era with the actual birthdate of Christ is a fact which is not denied even by the Christians - and it is a historical disjunction.71

Moreover, there are some other matters that 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 and 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 Church.72

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, ‘Isa son of Maryam, as given in this Gospel, generally corresponds with that given in the Qur’an.73

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 Syria.74

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 rumours...

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 Jerusalem...]

I have talked with most of the older men in this city, but few have been able to give me any definite information.75

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 definite 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 by 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 miserable...76

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

On pondering over this letter, one may easily understand which direction Christianity had taken - among the Israelites - soon after ‘Isa (‘a). Clearly it was a prophetic mission of a messenger sent by Allah - 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 ‘Isa 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.77

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, a deity descending in human body, and its suffering and being crucified78 to atone sins of mankind was very much prevalent among ancient idol-worshippers 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 Sanskrit (sic.) word tri (three) and murti (form) - and consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. It is an inseparable unity, though three in form.”79

Then he goes on to explain that Brahma is the Father; Vishnu, the Son; and Siva, the Holy Spirit. 80

Then he writes [in the footnote] about Vishnu, the Son that he is “the Lord and Saviour Chrishna81 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.’ 82

He writes that like the Christians, the Hindus too use the dove for the emblem of the third person of their trinity.83

[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.’ 84

[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... “ 85

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.’ ”86

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.” 87

It should be noted that these are the very words with which the Gospel of St. John begins.88

Doane quotes from Higgins’ Anacalypsis that: “Mithras, the Mediator, and Saviour of the Persians, was called the Logos.” 89

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.90

[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.”91

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

“Crishna, the virgin-born, “the Divine Vishnu himself’92, ‘he who is without beginning, middle or end’,93 being moved ‘to relieve the earth of her load’,94 came upon earth and redeemed man by his suffering - to save him.”95

“In the earlier copies of Moor’s Hindu Pantheon is to be seen as 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...”.96

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.’ ”97

“‘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.” ’ 98

Rev. Geo. W. Cox remarks on two opposite conceptions of Krishna’s character, in one of which he is described “as a self-sacrificing and unselfish hero”, who is, “filled with divine wisdom and love, who offers up a sacrifice which he alone can make.”99

“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.” 100

“The monk Giorgi 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.101

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 Heaven.102

This subject has been explained by many orientalists, like Bell,103, Huc, Muller,104 and others.105

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 had 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, 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 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 subjects, 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 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 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 Era106.

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, monasteries, 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 abnormal; 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 in Alexandria, 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 Nicaea, to counter the views of Arius,107 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 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 dead108, and the life of the world to come109. Amen!

That was the first Council; after that numerous Councils were held to anathematize newly appearing schisms, like the Nestorians, Jacobites, الاليانية Ilyanites [?], اليليارسية Yalyarsites 110 [?], Macedonians,111 Noetus,112 Sabellians,113 Paulianists114 (or Paulicians),115 and many others.

The Church was ever vigilant in guarding what in its eyes was the true faith. The missionary work continued in full force, until by the end of fifth century all European governments (except Russia) were parts of Christendom: France, England, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, etc., were all converted to Christianity by 496 C.E.

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 strives 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 Great,116 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.

Things continued in this manner, until the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, and Palaeologus, the last Byzantine Emperor and Head of the Eastern (i.e. Orthodox) Church, was killed in the Cathedral, Hagia Sophia.117

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.

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 Roman Church’s interpretation of religion nor do they recognize 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 nutshell, 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 goal 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 concession, or wilful adoption, or just because of die-hard old habits.

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 placed on throne whomsoever they wished and removed from it whoever they wished.118

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 winter) - for expiation of some mistakes which he beseeched the Pope to forgive.119

On another occasion, the Pope kicked with his foot the crown of a king who had approached him kneeling down to seek Papal pardon.120

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 idol-worshippers. 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 believe121 that the Muslims worshipped idols; that they believed in three gods: (1) Mahom (who is also called افوميد Afomed [?] and Mahound, he is the first among gods and he is Muhammad; (2) Apollo who is the second; and (3) Termagant who is the third. Others added two more to this list: مارتوان to Maratwan [?] 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 Termagant 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, Mahom 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). An ‘eye-witness’ says that the god (i.e., Muhammad, S) 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, Mahom, 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 them.122

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 obedience to it 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 conceivable 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 religious revival if one should arise.123

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’ experience.124

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 Shari‘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-Qummi narrates about the verse: It is not meet for a man that Allah should give him the Book and the Wisdom and Prophethood, then he should say to men, “Be my servants rather than Allah’s” (3:79). “Surely ‘Isa did not say to men: ‘I have created you, therefore you should be my servants rather than Allah’s’, rather he said to them: ‘Be worshippers of the Lord’, that is, having true knowledge.”125

The author says: The context and associations given in the Commentary support this explanation. “Surely ‘Isa 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.” (3:80), There were people who worshipped the angels; the Christians thought ‘Isa was the Lord; and the Jews said that ‘Uzayr was the Son of God. Allah therefore said that no prophet would enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for Lords.”126

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

It is narrated in ad-Durr al-Manthur from Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim and al-Bayhaqi (in his Dala’il an-Nubuwwah) from Ibn ‘Abbas that he said: “When the Jewish scholars and Christians of Najran gathered near the Messenger of Allah (S) and he invited them to Islam, Abu Rafi‘ al-Qurazi said: ‘Do you wish, O Muhammad, that we should worship you as the Christians worship ‘Isa son of Maryam?’ Thereupon a Christian of Najran said: ‘Well, do you want this from us, O Muhammad?’ The Messenger of Allah (S) said: ‘I seek refuge in Allah that we should worship other than Allah, or that we should enjoin worship of someone else; He has neither sent me with it nor has He enjoined me this.’ Therefore, Allah, revealed the verses (because of their question): It is not meet for a man... after you are Muslims (submitting ones)?” 127

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 Allah! We greet you (exactly) 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 Allah.” Then Allah revealed the verses: It is not meet for a man... after you are Muslims (submitting ones)?”’128

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 Allah knows better.

• 1. i.e., the tribesmen of the Messenger of Allah (S).
• 2. Refer to Qur’an, verses 3:35- 44; 19:16; 21:91; 66:12.
• 3. Refer to Qur’an, verses 3:33-50.
• 4. Refer to Qur’an, verses 19:20 27.
• 5. Refer to Qur’an, verses 19:27- 33.
• 6. Refer to Qur’an, verses 3:45 - 58; 4:157 - 158; 5:110 - 111; 43:63 - 65; 61:6 - 14.
• 7. Refer to Qur’an, verses 19:30.
• 8. Refer to Qur’an, verse 3:49.
• 9. Refer to Qur’an, verses 5:46; 33:7; 42:13.
• 10. Refer to Qur’an, verse 3:45.
• 11. Refer to Qur’an, verse 4:171.
• 12. Refer to Qur’an, verse 33:7.
• 13. Refer to Qur’an, verses 4:159; 5:117.
• 14. Refer to Qur’an, verse 61:6.
• 15. Refer to Qur’an, verse 3:45.
• 16. Refer to Qur’an, verse 3:33.
• 17. Refer to Qur’an, verses 6:85 – 87.
• 18. Refer to Qur’an, verses 19:19-33.
• 19. Refer to Qur’an, verse 3:48.
• 20. Because the situation demands self-abasement, not relaxedness. (Author’s note).
• 21. Like ash-Shahristani in his al-Milal wa ’n-nihal. (Author’s Note).
  The author has taken these descriptions from ash-Shahristani (vide al-Milal wa ’n-nihal [Egypt, 1381 A.H. = 1961 C.E.] vol. 1, pp. 220 - 228). But ash-Shahristani’s information is superfluous and apparently based on hearsay; and his comments on Christianity remind us one of his flight of fancy regarding Shi‘ite faith and its various imaginary branches.
  The fact is that almost all the splits in the early Christian Church were centred around the nature and substance of the Christ. It is not the place to go into historical details. Suffice it to say that gradually four groups had come into being about the nature of Jesus Christ:
  Homoousians who believe that the Son was of one substance with the Father; they are called the Orthodox;
  Homoeans who believed that the Son was like the Father; they are called the Arians;
  Homoiousians who believed that the Son was of like substance with the Father; they are called the Semi-Arians;
  Anomoeans who believed that the Son was unlike the Father; they are called Ultra-Arians.
  Ulimately the Orthodox (Homoousians) prevailed. They say that the Son was of one substance with the Father, and that the Incarnate Christ was a single Person of a doubt nature - Divine and human - at one God and man.
  All the sects are united on the ‘‘sonship’’, although they differ in its interpretation. That is why the Qur’an rejects sonship - and the resulting trinity - to refute the Christians’ belief in general. (tr.).
• 22. Melkites (or Melchites) were those Christians of Syria and Egypt who, refusing the doctrine of Monophysitism (the doctrine that in the Person of the Incarnate Christ there was but a single, that is, Divine, nature, as opposed to the orthodox belief of a single person of double nature), and accepting the definition of faith of the Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.), remained in communion with the Imperial See of Constantinople; hence their name that means ‘‘Emperor’s men’’. (ash-Shahristani thinks that Malka was some individual who started this sect!) They like other Orthodox Christians, believe that the Logo (Word) of God being conjoined with the man Jesus - together called the Christ - was begotten in a non-literal sense by God. They do not believe in physical human-like sonship. Today there are about a million Melkites, most of them belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, whose headquarters are at Damascus. (tr.).
• 23. Nestorians: Followers of Nestorius (cir. 380 - 451 C.E.), who was the Patriarch of Constantinople (428 - 431 C.E.). He believed that there were two separate Persons in the Incarnate Christ - that the physical nature of Jesus was separate from his divine one, as opposed to the orthodox doctrine. According to him, it was Jesus the man, who was born of the Virgin Mary. Consequently, he rejected the term, Theotokos, (lit., God-bearer; usually translated as ‘‘Mother of God’’), that was used to refer to Maryam. For this heresy he was anathematized by the Council of Ephesus (431 C.F.). (ash-Shahristani says that Nestorius lived during the reign of al-Ma’mun - 813 - 833 C. E.) (tr.).
• 24. Jacobites: The body of the Syrian Monophysites who rejected the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.) on the Person of the Christ. Monophysitism was the doctrine that in the Person of the Incarnate Christ there was but a single, that is, Divine, nature, as opposed to the orthodox belief of a single person of double nature. They were named after Jacob Baradaeus through whom they became the national Church of Syria. They flourished despite recurring Imperial persecutions, which led them to welcome the Muslim army when it attacked Syria. Although there were many converts to Islam (cir. 640 C.F.), the Jacobite Church continued. The Mongol invasions in 13th and 14th centuries caused their real decline. (tr.).
• 25. The quotations of the Old and New Testaments, here and elsewhere, are from King James version, because the Arabic version (printed in 1811 C.E.) used by the author, conforms to it. (tr.).
• 26. Baptism is a Christian sacrament of initiation into Church by immersing in water or sprinkling water on the head. (Author’s note).
• 27. The three proofs point to the above-mentioned three arguments respectively. (tr.)
• 28. That is what most of the Christians believe. But some of them, like Bishop Mar Ishaq, say that there is no difficulty if one refrains from inflicting a threatened punishment. In other words, it is all right not to fulfil a threat, although one is not allowed to break a promise of reward. (Author’s Note).
  Bishop Mar Ishaq’s view has been taken from ash-Shahristani’s al-Milal wa an-nihal, pp. 223 - 224. (tr.).
• 29. ‘‘My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ - the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.’’ (I John, 2/1-2) (Author’s Note).
• 30. For details, see the Commentary of the verses 2:35-39 Vide al-Mizan [Engl. transl.], Vol 1, pp. 178 - 213. (pub.)
• 31. See our discourse on the sinlessness of the prophets given in the Commentary of the verse 2:213 Vide al-Mizan [Engl. transl.], Vol 3, pp.195 - 204. (pub.).
• 32. We are not talking about a situation whereby someone had committed a sin and his descendants were pleased with his action, because in that case all would be counted as sinners.
• 33. See discourse on the “Deeds”, under verses 2:216 - 218. Vide al-Mizan [Engl. transl.], vol. 3, pp. 239 - 278. (tr.).
• 34. Refer the above-mentioned discourse on Deeds.
• 35. “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Gen., 6/6). (Author’s Note).
• 36. Epistle of Paul, chapter 1, I Corinthians, 1/19 - 23. (tr.).
• 37. ‘‘But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying: why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them: they that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’’ (Luke, 5/30 - 32) (Author’s Note).
• 38. ‘‘Also, I say unto you, whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.’’ (Luke, 12/8 - 9) (Author’s Note).
• 39. The phrase means ‘unknown territory’ [Note by Al-Islam.org].
• 40. For details see Commentaries of the verses 1:4 (the Master of the Day of Judgment), Vide al-Mizan [Engl. transl.], vol. 1, pp. 29 - 31. (pub.) and verse, Say: ‘O Allah, Master of the Kingdom...” (3:26), vol. 5, pp. 193 - 202. (pub.).
• 41. Vide al-Mizan [Engl. transl.], vol.1, pp.221 - 265. (pub.).
• 42. It is said that the first man to place idols in the Ka‘bah and to call the people to their worship was ‘Amr Ibn Luhayy, a contemporary of Shapur Dhu’l-Aktaf. He became the chief of his people in Mecca and took over the management of the House. Then he journeyed to the Syrian city, al-Balqa’, and found the people there worshipping idols. He enquired about it. They said: ‘‘These are the Lords, we have made them in the images of the celestial deities and human sages; we seek help from them and we get help; we pray to them for rain and we get rain.’’ ‘Amr requested them to give him one of the idols; they gave him the Hubal. He brought it to Mecca and putting it on the Ka‘bah, he invited the Meccans to worship it. He also had with him Asaf and Na’ilah in the image of a couple; he called people to them too in order to come nearer to Allah through them. This has been written by ash-Shahristani in his al-Milal wa ’n-nihal, as well as by others. It is very interesting to see that the Qur’an uses names of some idols of Arabia in the story of Nuh (‘a), where it quotes his complaint against his people: And they say: ‘‘By no means leave your gods, nor leave Wadd, nor Suwa‘; nor Yaghuth, and Ya‘uq and Nasr’’ (71:23). (Author’s Note).
• 43. The Hebrew Old Testament contains 39 Books, as the list given by the author himself shows. Roman Catholic Church follows the Greek O. T. which includes some more books and passages. (tr.).
• 44. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. (Author’s Note).
• 45. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. (Author’s Note).
• 46. Proverbs, Ecclesiastics and Song of Solomon. (Author’s Note).
• 47. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. (Author’s Note) .
• 48. There are fourteen Epistles of Paul, one of James, two of Peter, three of John and one of Jude. (Author’s Note) .
• 49. Paul writes to Galatians: ‘‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.’’ (Gal., 1/6 - 7)
  an-Najjar has given in his Qasas al-Anbiya’, this and similar other quotations from the Epistles of Paul to prove that there was there a book - other than the four Gospels - which was called the Injil of the Messiah. (Author’s Note)
• 50. The author in this section has given a lot of references from the Christian and western writers. He had to rely on Arabic translations of English or other languages, given in Tafsir al-Manar (ed., Rashid Rida, Egypt, 4th ed., 1380/1961, vol. 6, pp.31 - 36 and 88 - 92), and some other books and Encyclopaedias. I tried to get hold of original sources, so that in my translation I could include those quotations in their original wordings - it would have been odd to retranslate into English an English passage through its Arabic rendering. Unfortunately, oriental authors generally do not give the original spellings of the names of western writers or their work, nor do they put vowels on them to help in pronunciation. To compound the difficulty, there were some printing mistakes in al-Manar which were faithfully copied in al-Mizan. For example, Anacaly psis of Higgins appears as الانگلوساكسن (al-Anglo-Saxon) in Arabic, and Monier Williams has become Morifore Lims!
  After spending more than a month in various sections of the British Library, London, I was able to get many sources - and then it transpired that a large portion of quotations given in al-Manar was not taken directly from the original books, but from Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions (by Doane, Thomas William).
  There are still some names which I could not ascertain. While writing such a name in English I have given first the Arabic rendering, then its English transliteration followed by question mark within brackets [?]. I shall be obliged if any reader could help me in finding their correct spellings. (tr.).
• 51. This happened before the time of Musa. At that time the rulers of Egypt had not yet adopted the title ‘Pharaoh’ [Note of al-Islam.org].
• 52. There appeared two Kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north. (tr.).
• 53. Modern scholars think that it happened in 397 B.C. (tr.).
• 54. Vide Qamus al-Kitabi ’l-Muqaddas (Dictionary of the Bible) by هاكس Mr. Hawks [?], and other books of history. (Author’s Note).
  Translator’s Note: The first five books of the Old Testament, commonly known as the Torah, are also called Pentateuch. In the 18th Century, some Christian scholars started what is now known as the ‘‘Higher Criticism’’. Their views are now accepted by a great part of Christiandom. They have proved that it contains writings of unknown number of people right up to 1000 years after the death of Musa. I append below the time table and sequence of its editing (in short) as given by Rev. William Kemp Lowther Clarke, in his Concise Bible Commentary (S.P.C.K., London, 1952): He says that by the end of the 19th Century, it was generally recognized ‘‘that there are four main sources in the Pentateuch, to be assigned to the 9th, 8th, 7th and 5th or 4th Centuries (B.C.) respectively.’’
  ‘‘The first look at the Pentateuch shows three characteristics styles illustrated by Genesis:1, Genesis:2 and Deuteronomy, and the documents marked by these styles were first to be noticed.’’
  ‘‘The obviously early source begins in Gen. 2/4. This source is called ‘J’, after the J of Jehovah (pronounced Jahweh). ‘J’ is generally thought to have been put into written form about 850 B.C.
  ‘‘Another source is ‘D’, so-called from the book of Deuteronomy, which was the book of law discovered in Josiah’s reign. The third source is called Priestly document, P for short. A large part of P is believed to have been composed in Babylonia and brought to Jerusalem by Ezra in 397 B.C. How much of P was omitted in final compilation of Pentateuch we have no means of knowing. There was a subordinate source, known as the Code of Holiness, H for short. Opinions differ whether it was written before 586 B.C. or after the fall of Jerusalem. It is found in Lev. 17/28.
  ‘‘Now comes the fourth source. After taking P, D and J from the Pentateuch a considerable amount of material remains, parallel to J, but in Genesis using Elohim for God and not Yahweh. This non-P Elohim matter begins in Gen. 20/1 - 17 ... Altogether E is more mature religiously and is thought to have reached written from about 750 (B.C.).’’
  How were these four main sources compiled to form the Pentateuch? ‘The first step was to combine J and E. This must have been done after the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C. The two were combined in a document which is called JE. Then in 621 Deuteronomy was discovered, or at least a large part of it.
  The next stage was to put JE, and D together. This will have taken place during the exile. A perceptible amount of editing of JE took place. P was written in Babylonia and brought to Jerusalem by Ezra in 397 B.C. Later, editors used it as a framework and incorporated JED, thus producing the Pentateuch ... in about 300 B.C.’’
  Rev. Clarke sums it up in these words: ‘‘Probably a multitude of persons have combined to give us Genesis (etc.), covering in their lives a span of 1,000 years.’’
  Even that minority of the Christian scholars which still holds fast to the theory of ‘‘Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has to admit that it must have been rewritten by the subsequent generations to modernize the language. This concession has to be given because ‘‘it is hardly probable that the Hebrew of Moses’ day was like that of Biblical Hebrew.’’ See the Westminister Dictionary of Bible, under ‘‘Pentateuch’’.
• 55. هاكس Hawks [?], Dictionary of Bible, under ‘‘Matthew’’. (Author’s Note).
  This Book is referred to hereafter as Dic. of Bib. (tr.).
• 56. Vide Mizan al-haqq; Dic. of Bib., too admits it with some reluctance. (Author’s Note)
• 57. ‘Abd al-Wahhab an-Najjar, Qasas al-anbiya’, [p.400, 2nd ed., Cairo, n.d.], quoting from بطرس قرماج Batrus Qarmaj [?] Maruj al-akhbar fi tarajimi ’l-abrar [Beirut, 1880]. (Author’s Note).
  As described in the Dic. of Bib. It says: ‘‘Although the early fathers unanimously say that St. Mark had written his Gospel in Rome and that it was published after the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul, but this is not very credible, because it appears from his Gospel that he had written it for the tribes and villagers, not for the (civilized) people leaving in cities - and especially Rome.’’ Ponder on this statement. (Author’s Note).
• 58. As described in the Dic. of Bib. It says: ‘‘Although the early fathers unanimously say that St. Mark had written his Gospel in Rome and that it was published after the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul, but this is not very credible, because it appears from his Gospel that he had written it for the tribes and villagers, not for the (civilized) people leaving in cities - and especially Rome.’’ Ponder on this statement. (Author’s Note).
• 59. Vide Dic. of Bib., under the heading ‘‘Paul’’. (Author’s Note).
• 60. See the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul. (Author’s Note).
• 61. Luke begins his Gospel with these words:
  ‘‘Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.’’ (Luke, 1/1 - 3)
  It clearly shows that it is a book based on human understanding, not on revelation. This view has also been attributed to كدل Mr. Cadell [?] in the booklet, Revelation. St. Jerome has said that some early Fathers had doubts about the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, and that they were missing from the version of the Marcionites*. Eichhorn** declares in his book (p.95) that verses 43 to 47 of the 2nd chapter of the Luke’s Gospel are an interpolation. Also, he says on p. 61 of his book: ‘‘Fictitious narratives have been mixed up in description of miracles mentioned by Luke; and the writer has included them as poetic exaggeration. But it is difficult at this point of time to separate truth from falsehood.’’ And an-Najjar quotes in Qasas al-anbiya’ (p. 401) the saying of كلي مي شيس Mr. Clemesious [?] that: Matthew and Mark differ in their narration; and when they identify, their report would be given preference over that of Luke (Author’s Note).
  * Marcionites, followers of Marcion (d. cir. 160), who rejected the Law and believed in Gospel of Love only. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that the twelve Apostles and the Evangelists were blind to this reality and only St. Paul understood it. For them the only Canonical Scriptures were ten of the fourteen Epistles of Paul. (tr.).
  ** Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried (1752 - 1827) was Biblical scholars and orientalist. He was among the first to make comparison between the Biblical Books and other Semitic languages; and one of the earliest critics who laid foundation of the High Criticism of the Bible. (tr.).
• 62. Vide Dic. of Bib., under John. (Author’s Note).
• 63. Cerinthus, who flourished around 100 C.E., was a Gnostic ‘‘heretic’’. Among other things, he taught that Jesus began his earthly life as a mere man; at his baptism ‘the Christ’, a ‘‘higher divine power’’, descended on him, only to depart from him again before the crucifixion. He seems to have had connections both with the Ebionites and Alexandrine Gnosticism. (tr.).
• 64. Ebionites, literally ‘poor men’, were a sect of Christian Jews that flourished in the early centuries of the Christian era. Apparently, two of their principal tenets were: (i) belief in humanity of the Person of Christ, to the effect, for example, that Jesus was the human son of Joseph and Mary, and that the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove lighted on him at his baptism; and (ii) emphasis on the binding character of the Mosaic Law. (tr.).
• 65. an-Najjar, Qasas al-anbiya’, quoting Jirjis Zuwayn al-Futuhi of Lebnon. (Author’s Note).
• 66. an-Najjar, op. cit., quoting from the Catholic Herald, 1844, vol.7, p. 205 quoting استادلن Ostadelane [?]; also Dic. of Bib. points to it, under ‘John’. (Author’s Note).
• 67. It is the view of Bretschneider, as an-Najjar has written in his Qasas al-anbiya’, quoting from al-Faruq.,vol. 1. (Author’s Note).
  Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb (1776 - 1848) had written a treatise on the Gospel of John in 1820. (tr.).
• 68. It is the view of Bretschneider, as an-Najjar has written in his Qasas al-anbiya’, quoting from al-Faruq.,vol. 1. (Author’s Note).
  Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb (1776 - 1848) had written a treatise on the Gospel of John in 1820. (tr.).
• 69. Traditionally, the Gospel of Matthew is held to be the oldest of the four. But modern scholars commonly hold that it is Mark which is the oldest. There occurs a large amount of common subject matter in the three Synoptic Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark and Luke) and often similar phrasing in more than one Gospel. That this parallelism, of varying degree of closeness, must be accounted for by their literary interdependence is nowadays almost universally held by scholars. There is also wide, but less complete, agreement that
  (1) Mark is the earliest of the three Gospels and was used as a framework by both Matthew and Luke;
  (2) the non-Marcan material common to Matthew and Luke is derived from a single lost source known to critics as ‘Q’ (from German ‘Quelle’ = source); and
  (3) the authors of Matthew and Luke used further sources for the matter peculiar to them. In view of the fact that Matthew drew extensively on Mark, which he expanded with the aid of ‘Q’, the early tradition that the Gospel was written in Hebrew is untenable.
  The chief objection to its ascription to St. Matthew is the unlikelihood that an Apostle, who was an eyewitness of the events, would have taken as his principal source of the work of St. Mark, whose material is in any case second-hand. Vide The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., 1974 (OUP). See also the Concise Bible Commentary (by Rev. W. K. L. Clark; pub. by S. P. C. K., London, 1952) and the Westminster Dictionary of Bible.
  It is not only the Gospel of Matthew whose author is unknown; the Gospel of John suffers from the same fate. Many scholars believe that its author was some disciple and follower of the Apostle John the son of Zebedee. ‘‘His name is either unknown to us, or more likely, was John the Presbyter, or Elder.’’ (tr.).
• 70. This subject has been described in detail by the scholar Behruz, in a book he recently wrote on the Prophetic foretelling. I hope to quote some parts of it at the end of the Commentary of Chapter Four ‘‘The Women’’. What is certain (and with which we are concerned here) is the incorrectness of the Christians Era. (Author’s Note).
• 71. Vide the Die. of Bib., under Christ. (Author’s Note).
• 72. Celsus, the 2nd Century’s philosopher, admonished the Christians, in his book, Logos Alethes (The True Word) for their manipulations of the Gospels - that they erase by tomorrow what they had written yesterday. [He wrote this book about 176 - 180 C.E. It was the first notable polemic against Christianity. The book itself has perished, but fragments of high interest occur as quotations in Origen’s Contra Celsum].
  *In 384, Pope Damasus ordered a new Latin translation of the Old and New Testaments to be prepared for the Church - Emperor Theodosius had become tired of the polemics and controversies raging among the bishops. That translation, called Vulgate, was completed; it covered only the four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The editors wrote: ‘‘After comparing various old Greek copies, we edited them, that is, we discarded what was contradictory, and left the remaining parts as they were.’’ That version was confirmed by the Trent Council held in 1546, that is, some eleven centuries later.
  In 1590, Pope Sixtus V declared that it contained errors and mistakes, and ordered a new version to be published. Pope Clement VIII found fault with the second version too and ordered, in 1592, publication of a new revised version - which is used by the Catholic Church today. (Tafsir al-Jawahir, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p.121) (Author’s Note)
  * Note: The material given within the brackets, here and elsewhere in the text or within the Author’s Notes, has been added by the Translator for deeper understanding or greater clarity. (tr.).
• 73. This Gospel in Italian had been discovered some time ago. Dr. Khalil Sa‘adah of Egypt translated it into Arabic, and the well-known scholar Sardar Kabuli, into Persian in Iran. (Author’s Note).
  The said manuscript was found in the Imperial Library, Vienna. Lonsdale and Laura Ragg edited the Italian text and translated it into English, which was published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1907. It was from that version that the above-mentioned Arabic version was prepared. Strange as it may seem, now only two copies of the 1907 edition are known to exist, one in the British Library, London, and the other in the Library of Congress, Washington. Within the last two decades Begum Aisha Bawany Waqf, Karachi, has printed it several times and distributed it widely throughout the Muslim World.
  Understandably, the Christians, including the translators (Lonsdale and Laura Ragg) themselves claim that the Vienna manuscript is spurious, not genuine. Their arguments deserve careful consideration. (tr.).
• 74. It appears in the book, under the heading ‘‘The Story of Joshua of Nazareth, whom the Greeks called Jesus.’’ I have copied verbatim a part of the physician’s letter which the author of al-Mizan has given only a gist of it. (tr.).
• 75. This, when it was 62 C.E., and they were older men! Strange, isn’t it? (Author’s Comment).
• 76. Van Loon, Hendrick Willem: The Story of Mankind, London, 1922, pp. 119 - 123. (tr.)
• 77. It is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul; also, it is admitted by the Christians themselves. (Author’s Note).
• 78. Killing by crucifixion is one of the oldest methods. They used to crucify the hardest criminals who had committed very heinous crimes, because crucifixion was the most torturous way of killing and left the blackest stigma on the name of the one so executed. The cross was made by joining two wooden logs at an angle with each other [like T, t or X] as we see the crosses nowadays; it was done in a way that a man could be placed on it. The criminal was attached to it with outstretched hands and arms; his palms were fixed on the horizontal piece with nails, and the legs nailed to the upright post - sometimes they were tied to it and not nailed. Then the cross was erected vertically in the earth, leaving a space of about a yard between the earth and the victim’s feet. He was left on the cross for a day or more; then his legs were broken, and he was killed on the cross, or was brought down from the cross and then killed. The victim, before being put on cross, was tortured, whipped, or mutilated. It was an indelible disgrace for a family or clan if one of them was crucified. (Author’s Note).
• 79. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions; being a comparison of the Old and New Testament myths and miracles with those of heathen nations of antiquity, considering also their origin and meaning; New York, 1883, p. 369. (tr.)
• 80. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions.
• 81. The author of al-Mizan, like many others, opines that the word ‘Krishna’ has been taken in European languages as Christ, to mean the Anointed Saviour. (tr.).
• 82. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, p. 370 (tr).
• 83. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, footnote no. 4 (tr).
• 84. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, p. 371 (tr).
• 85. Doane, op cit., p. 372 (tr).
• 86. Doane, op. cit., p.373, quoting from Higgins, Godfrey: Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and Religions; London, vol. 2, p. 14. (tr.).
• 87. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions quoting Bonwick, James: Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought; London, 1878; p.402. (tr.).
• 88. Doane op cit., says on p.375: ‘‘The celebrated passage: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,’ is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus.’’ And he writes a footnote on it: ‘‘The first that we know of this Gospel [i.e., John] for certain is during the time of Irenaeus, the great, Christian forger.’’ (tr.).
• 89. Doane, op cit., p.373, footnote no. 5, quoting Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. 2, p. 102. (tr.).
• 90. Doane, op. cit., Vide his chapter, ‘The Trinity’, pp. 368 - 383, where he mentions some other ancient nations too, having such beliefs. (tr.).
• 91. Doane, op. cit., p. 181.
• 92. Vishnu Purana, A System of Hindoo Mythology and Tradition, translated by H.H. Wilson; London, 1840; p. 440. (tr.).
• 93. Vishnu Purana, A System of Hindoo Mythology and Tradition, translated by H.H. Wilson; London, 1840; p. 440. (tr.).
• 94. Vishnu Purana, A System of Hindoo Mythology and Tradition, translated by H.H. Wilson; London, 1840; p. 440. (tr.).
• 95. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions. p. 185, quoting Edward Moor: Plates Illustrating the Hindu Pantheon; London, 1816; and Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. 2. (tr.).
• 96. Doane, Thomas William: Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, p.185, quoting Edward Moor: Plates Illustrating the Hindu Pantheon; London, 1816; and Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. 2. (tr.).
• 97. Doane op. cit., quoting M. l’Abbe Huc: Travels (Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet); London, 1857, vol. 1, pp. 326 - 327. (tr.).
• 98. Doane op. cit., quoting Monier Williams: Hinduism, London, 1877, p. 214. (tr.).
• 99. Cox, George William, The Mythology of the Aryan Nations; London, 1870, vol. 2, p. 132. (tr.).
• 100. Doane, op. cit., pp. 187 - 188, quoting Higgins: op. cit., p.118. (tr.).
• 101. Doane, op. cit., pp. 187.
• 102. Doane, op. cit., pp. 18-189.
• 103. John Bell, New Pantheon, or Historical Dictionary of Gods, Demi-Gods, Heroes and Fabulous Personages of Antiquity... in two volumes, London, 1790. (tr.).
• 104. Max Muller, A History of Ancient Sancrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmins; London, 1860. (tr.).
• 105. Vide chapter XX (The Crucifixion of Christ Jesus) of the Doane’s Book. (tr.)
  The author of al-Mizan writes: ‘‘The reader will find these quotations in Tafsir al-Manar (vol. 6, under the Chapter of ‘The Women’), various encyclopaedias and the book, al-‘Aqa’id al-wathaniyyah fi ’d-diyanati ’n-Nasraniyyah, and others.’’ The last-named book is authored by Muhammad Tahir Āfandi. (tr.).
• 106. It happened in the first (not the second) half of the fourth century. Constantine I (the Great) established Christianity as State religion in 324; Nicaean Council was held in 325; his new capital at Byzantium was inaugurated in 330 (hence Byzantine Empire) which was renamed Constantinople (City of Constantine); he died in 337. (tr.).
• 107. Arius was Presbyter of Bancalis. A follower of Origen, he believed that Christ was a created being, not of the substance of God but created from ‘‘nothing’’; he had a beginning and was thus not eternal. Although he was defeated at the Nicene Council (held in 325), subsequent Councils held at Arles, Milan and Sirmium (held in 353, 355 and 357, respectively) upheld his views. But it was again defeated in the Constantinople Council held in 381. Christian scholars say that Arians’ ‘temporary triumph’ ‘‘had been made possible by imperial interference.’’ But so was the case with the ‘‘original Nicene success’’ and its later victories. (See Williston Walker, A History of Christian Church, Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 107 - 117.) (tr.).
• 108. Many have commented on the last sentence that it affirms physical resurrection, while the Christians believe in spiritual resurrection only as the Gospel shows. But I think that the Gospel only indicates the absence of physical worldly enjoyments in the next world; it does not say that man will be resurrected in spirit only without his body. It rather says that man in the resurrection will become like angels, and there will be no sexual enjoyment among them. On the other hand, the Bible shows that even God and angels have bodies, let alone the man after resurrection. (Author’s Note).
• 109. The author has taken these details from ash-Shahristani’s al-Milal wa ’n-nihal. Ash-Shahristani is confused when he says that the ‘‘first Council held at Nicaea’’ assembled ‘‘at Constantinople’’. The Nicene Council had assembled in 325 at Nicaea, and another Council was held at Constantinople in 381 C. E. The actual Nicene Creed is now only a matter of surmise. Probably it ended with the sentence, ‘And in the Holy Spirit’.
  However, the Constantinople Council reconfirmed and enlarged it. That is why scholars refer to it as, ‘‘the so-called Nicene Creed’’, and sometimes with its technically correct name, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. But in spite of all that, its first appearance was at the Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.); it was signed on 25/10/451, in presence of the Emperor Marcian. (See J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Longman, London, 3rd ed., 1972, pp. 296 - 297; and The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church, 2nd ed., O.U.P., 1977).
  In ash-Shahristani’s book, the number of participants of the first Council is given as 318 and not 313. (tr.).
• 110. The author has taken these names from ash-Shahristani. I could not find the names, الاليانية and اليليارسية in the books I referred to ash-Shahristani, however, it gives the following details:
  Ilyanites: A sub-sect of the Jacobites, found in Syria, Yemen, and Armenia. They believed that ‘Isa was not a body in reality; all the sufferings, killing and crucifixion happened only on an illusion (or illusory being).
  Yalyarsites: They believed that people, on arriving at the heaven, would enjoy eating, drinking and sexual relations for a thousand years; thereafter, they would proceed to the bounties promised by Arius. (tr.).
• 111. Macedonians: Named after Macedonius (died c. 362), Bishop of Constantinople. He strongly supported the semi-Arian cause in Council of Seleucia (359). From end of the fourth century, he is regarded as the founder of Pneumatomachi who are called Macedonians after him. They denied the full Godhead of the Holy Ghost. See The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church; also W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 118. (tr.).
• 112. Noetus: In Arabic text this name is mentioned the last. I have put it before the Sabellians, etc., as it would facilitate understanding. Noetus, probably of Smyrna, taught in his native region in 180 to 200 ‘‘that Christ was the Father Himself, and the Father Himself was born and suffered and died’’. His views were called Modalistic Monarchianism. (W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p.69). Another name for that belief was Patripassion doctrine; Noetus also rejected Logo doctrine. (The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church). (tr.).
• 113. Sabellians: Sabellianism is an alternative title for the Modalistic Monarchianism. Named after Sabbellus, who was teaching in Rome cir. 215. His theology was essentially that of Noetus, but much more carefully wrought out, especially in that it gave a definite place to the Holy Spirit, as well as to the Son. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one and the same. They are three names of one God, Who manifests Himself in different ways according to circumstances. (W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 69). (tr.).
• 114. Paulianists: Followers of Paul of Samosata; he became Bishop of Antioch cir. 260. He taught a form of Dynamic Monarchianism in which Godhead was a closely knit trinity of Father, Wisdom and Word, and until creation formed a single hypostasis. He was a precursor of Nestorius, holding that from Incarnation the Word rested upon the human Jesus as one person upon another, and that the Incarnated Christ differed only in degree from the prophets. (The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church). (tr.).
• 115. Paulicians: A sect of the Byzantine Empire. Their name may have been derived from St. Paul, or more probably from Paul of Samosata. Endlessly persecuted, many of them assisted the Muslims in their wars against the empire and adopted Islam. Apparently, they ceased to exist as an independent sect in the twelfth century. (ibid.) (tr.).
• 116. Gregory I (590 - 604) established the temporal power of the Papacy in that period of unrest in Italy. However, it was Pope Innocent III who during his Papacy (1198 - 1216) made several European Kings and Emperors to pay homage to him, accepting him as their overlord. (tr.).
• 117. Constantine XIII Palaeologus (1394 - 1453) was killed on 29th May 1453. (tr.).
• 118. al-Futuhat al-Islamiyyah. (Author’s Note).
• 119. al-Futuhat al-Islamiyyah. (Author’s Note).
• 120. al-Futuhat al-Islamiyyah. (Author’s Note).
• 121. This and the following descriptions have been taken from هنري دوكاستري Cite Henry de Castries; ad-Diyanat al-Islamiyyah, chapter l. (Author’s Note).
• 122. Many such astonishing ‘‘revelations’’ have been quoted by Norman Daniel in his, Islam and the West. The Making of an Image, Edinburgh University Press, 1960. (tr.).
• 123. The Life (New York edition), John Knox Jessup, in the article, The World, the Flesh and the Devil, 26th December, 1955, p. 143. (tr.) .
• 124. The Life (New York edition), John Knox Jessup, in the article, The World, the Flesh and the Devil, 26th December, 1955, p. 143. (tr.).
• 125. Tafsir Qummi.
• 126. Tafsir Qummi.
• 127. ad-Durr al-Manthur.
• 128. ad-Durr al-Manthur.