The Christian Concept of Paradise

4 The Christian Concept of Paradise

It has already been elucidated earlier 99 that to the Muslims the Evangel strictly means the book that was originally revealed to the Prophet Jesus. Now if any of the statements of Jesus is found to be in contradiction with any Qur’anic injunction, effort should be made to explain away the discrepancy. According to the Christian scriptures, the comparison of the dwellers of Paradise with the angels does not negate their eating and drinking there. Have they not read in Genesis chapter 18 that the angels who visited Abraham were presented with “dressed calf, butter and milk, which they did eat 100”? Similarly the angels who appeared to Lot ate the bread and other food that Lot prepared for them,

which is clearly written in chapter 19 of the book of Genesis. It is surprising that the Christians believe in the physical resurrection of human beings on the Day of Judgment and yet insist on denying physical delights for them in Paradise! It would have been less objectionable if they totally denied the resurrection of man as did the associators of Arabia, or believed only in spiritual resurrection as was believed by the followers of

Aristotle. Physical attributes, like eating and drinking, are ascribed to God by the Christians because they believe that Jesus was God incarnate. On the other hand we are made to understand that Jesus was not as abstinent and ascetic as was John the Baptist. Christ’s opponents even accuse him of being, “gluttonous and winebibber 101”, though we Muslims totally deny this accusation and firmly

believe that he was totally free from such defects. We unhesitatingly claim that the Prophet Jesus was purely human. Now, when physical pleasures like eating and drinking could not prevent him experiencing spiritual delights and as he enjoyed the spiritual blessings more than the physical ones in this life, so the physical pleasures in Paradise will not

deprive people of their spiritual delights. In fact, the Protestant claim that there will be no physical pleasure in Paradise is clearly denied by innumerable statements appearing in the Bible. We

produce a few examples of such statements below:

And the Lord God commanded the man (Adam) saying, Of every tree of

the Garden thou mayest freely eat 102.”

99 Before proceeding further into this discussion it should be remembered that the Christians totally deny physical blessings and pleasures in Paradise. They believe only in spiritual delights in Paradise for which they seek justifying arguments from some verses of the Bible. 100 The Qur’an also describes the event of the angels appearing to the Prophet Ibrahim with the difference that it clearly states that the angels did not even touch the dressed calf prepared by the Prophet Ibrahim (See chapter 51 of the Holy Qur’an). Our author is answering the Christians according to their own belief. 101 Matthew 11:19 102 Genesis 2:16 4 This clearly indicates that there are many trees in Paradise bearing fruit to eat. In this context they contend that Adam’s Paradise was on the earth while the Paradise of the Hereafter is in the heavens and that the former was different from the latter. Firstly, their claim of Adam’s Paradise being on earth is not supported by any statement of their sacred books; secondly, if we assume it to be true, they have no argument to support that this Paradise was different from the one in heavens. On the contrary the Gospels make us believe that there will be physical pleasures in the Paradise of the Hereafter. The Prophet Jesus is

reported to have said itto his apostles:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,

until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom 103.

Also see Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18. Similarly we read the following under the

description of the Hereafter in Luke 13:29:

And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north,

and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

It is on the basis of such statements that the ancient Christians believed in both physical and spiritual pleasures in Paradise. Saint Augustine also said that he liked the opinion that Paradise consisted of physical as well as spiritual pleasures. Saint Thomas Aquinas has also refuted those who deny physical

pleasures in Paradise.

The third contention with regard to Jihad (Religious War) will be discussed later in this book. This is regarded by the Christians as their strongest point

against the Holy Prophet and we intend to discuss it in depth.

Fourth Objection

Another objection which is often forwarded by Christians against the divine origin of the Holy Qur’an is that the Holy Qur’an, according to them, does not

speak of the motives and requirements of the human spirit. There are only two things that can be said to be the motives and requirements of the human spirit. Firm belief and good deeds. The Holy Qur’an is full of descriptions with regard to the above spiritual desires and requirements. Elaborate descriptions are found in almost all the chapters of the Holy Qur’an. The absence of other things that are assumed by the Protestants to be the motives and requirements of the spirit does not prove any defect in the

103 Matt. 26:29 4 Holy Qur’an. The Bible and Qur’an are not considered to be defective for not preventing people from eating meat, something which is considered by the Hindu Pandits to be against the motives and requirerrients of the human spirit, because, in their opinion, slaughtering animals only for eating and physical pleasure is not liked by the spirit. According to Hindu theologians such an act cannot have divine sanction. They contend that any book containing such ideas

cannot be the word of God.

Fifth Objection

The fifth objection raised by the Christians against the Holy Qur’an is that certain passages of the Holy Qur’an disagree with certain others. For example the following verses of the Holy Qur’an are said to contradict those verses that

proclaim the doctrine of jihad.

(1) “There is no compulsion in religion 104.” (2) “Your duty is only to warn them; you are not their keeper 105.” (3) “Say, Obey Allah and obey His messenger. If you turn away, he is still bound to bear his burden, and you are bound to bear your own burden. If you obey him you shall be on the right Path. The duty of the messenger is

nothing but to convey the message clearly 106.”

They claim that the above verses are contradictory to the verses that enjoin

the duty of jihad (war) against the disbelievers. Similarly, it is claimed by the Christians that the Holy Qur’an speaks in some places of Jesus as being purely human and the Messenger of God while other verses speak of his being superior to human beings. For example at one

place the Holy Qur’an says:

Al Masih Isa (Jesus), the son of Mariam, was no more than Allah’s

messenger and His word which He cast of Mariam: a spirit from Him 107.

The following verse is cited, as contradicting the above verse:

And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity and we

breathed into ( her body) of our spirit 108.

104 Qur’an 2:256 105 Qur’an 88:21 106 Qur’an 24:54 107 Qur’an 4:171 108 Qur’an 66:12 4 The above two objections are forwarded by the Christians with great force. As far as the first objection is concemed, the verses quoted above denying compulsion etc. are verses that were revealed prior to the verses of jihad. They were abrogated by the later verses that enjoined jihad. Abrogation, as we have discussed earlier in detail, is not in any way a discrepancy or contradiction. Otherwise it would require that all the abrogated injunctions of the Pentateuch and the Gospels be considered as real contradictions. It may be added here that

the verse 2:256 is not included in the abrogated verses 109. The answer to the second objection has already been discussed in this book where we proved that the above verses do not and cannot imply that Jesus, the son of Mary, does not belong to mankind or that he was superior to human beings. This kind of deduction from these verses is nothing but sheer ignorance. We are surprised to note how they ignore the plain contradictions present in their own books of which we have cited so many specific examples earlier in

this book 110.

The Authenticity of the Holy Traditions (Hadith)

We intend to discuss in this section the authenticity of the Holy traditions that are included in Sihah (the six collections of the Traditions that are proved to

be Sahih or authenticated).

The Status of Oral Tradition in the Bible

Oral tradition was held in high esteem by the People of the Book, both Jews and Christians, of all times. It was held by them to be as authentic and reliable as the written law. The Jews give even more reverence to oral tradition than they do to their written law. The Catholics hold both of them as equal in status while the Protestants disbelieve and deny oral tradition like the Sadducees, a Jewish sect. The Protestants deny it because they have to deny it, otherwise it would be quite difficult for them to prove their innovations in Christianity. In spite of this, the Protestants too find themselves in grave need of oral tradition on certain occasions, which is evident from the examples found in their sacred

books, and which will shortly be made clear.

109 This verse has nothing to do with the verses of jihad and it is not in any way against those verses as will be shown later in its proper context 110 Their objections with regard to these verses are so imbecile and ungrounded that it does not require any serious consideration. Students of the Qur’an will have no difficulty in realising the poverty of reason behind them. (Raazi)

4 The Talmud and the Mishnah

Adam Clarke said in the introduction to the Book of Ezra in his commentary printed in 1751 that the Hebrew canon was of two kinds: the written canon which was called Torah and the other which was unwritten and called the oral tradition. This oral tradition was transmitted orally by the ancients to later generations. They claim that both of these canons were revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Pentateuch reached them by means of writing while the other was handed down to them orally through the generations. The Jews believe that both of them are equal in status, preferring, in fact, oral tradition to the written law of Moses, the Torah. They think that written law is often more complicated than the oral tradition, and it cannot be made the basis of faith without the oral traditions. These traditions, in their opinion, are simpler and clearer and elucidate the written canon. This is why Jews disregard any commentary that is found to be in disagreement with the oral tradition. It is commonly believed by the Jews that the covenant, that the Children of Israel

were made to enter into, was for the oral law and not for the Torah 111. Through this claim they have disregarded the written law and the oral tradition was given the status of being the source of their faith. Similarly the Roman Catholics also chose the same path and defined and explained the word of God through oral traditions, with no consideration of its being against many verses of the word of God. In the time of Jesus, they had gone so far that he

rebuked them for distorting the word of God, saying:

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your

tradition 112.

They also transgressed God’s covenant and made the oral tradition superior to the written law. It is stated in their books that the sayings of their elders are dearer to them than the words of the Pentateuch. Some words of the Torah are good hut some others are absurd and useless while all the sayings of their elders are desirable and praiseworthy, far better even than the sayings of the Prophets. The Jewish writings also say that the written law is like water, while the traditions contained by the Talmud and Mishnah are like aromatic herbs. Also their writings state that the written law is like salt while the Talmud and Mishnah are like pepper. There are many other similar expressions preferring the oral tradition to the written canon. The word of God is defined and understood by them through oral traditions. The written law is regarded by them

as a dead body and the oral tradition to them is like the soul in the body.

111 This covenant is been described in Deuteronomy 29:1 according to which the Israelites were bound to follow the laws given by God. (Taqi) 112 Matthew 15:6 4 This oral tradition is supported by them with the argument that at the time the Torah was revealed by God to Moses, God also elucidated the text of the Torah to Moses, and commanded him to write down the Torah and to remember the explanation without putting it into writing. He was also commanded to convey this elucidation orally to the people, so that it could be transmitted orally from generation to generation. They use the term “written canon” for the Torah and “oral canon” for the tradition. The judgments and religious decrees which

are in accordance with the oral tradition are termed as ”the canon of Moses”. They also claim that just as the Torah was revealed to Moses in forty days, being a direct dialogue between God and Moses, the oral tradition was also revealed to him in the same way. He brought both of them from Mount Sinai and conveyed them to the Israelites. It is stated that on his return from Mount Sinai, Moses first called Aaron to his tent and taught him the written canon then he taught him the oral tradition that was the elucidation of the Torah given to him by God. After acquiring the knowledge, Aaron came and sat at the right- hand side of Moses. Then came the two sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar. They were also taught the canons in the same way and after learning them they got up and one of them sat at the left hand of Moses and the other at the right

hand of Aaron. Then came seventy elders. They also learnt the canons and then they took their seats in the tent. They were followed by some other people who were intent upon leaming the canons. The Moses stood up and Aaron recited what had been imparted to him and then got up, then Eleazer and Ithamar also recited the canops and so did the others who had learnt them. In this way every one

who was present heard it four times and remembered it well. On their return people communicated the written law through writing and its elucidation was conveyed orally to the Israelites. In this way the canons were handed down to other generations. The number of the written commandments in

the Torah was six hundred and thirteen which were later divided into parts. They also claim that Moses gathered them into a great assembly in the eleventh month of the fortieth year after their exodus from Egypt, in which he also informed them of his death, and commanded them to learn any part of the Law they had forgotten. He also invited people to satisfy their doubts, if any, with regard to any commandment or statements of the Law. Thereafter he remained busy teaching the Torah until his death (that is, from the first day of the eleventh month up to the sixth day of the twelfth month). He taught both of them, the written and the unwritten canon. He also prepared thirteen copies of the written law in his own hand and gave one copy to each tribe so that it might remain safe through the generations. One copy of this law was also given to the children of Levi for preservation in the temple. The verbal traditions were conveyed to Joshua. Then on the seventh day of this month he climbed up

Mount Nebo where he died.

4 After his death Joshua communicated the verbal traditions to the elders of the Israelites, they, in turn passed them to the Prophets. Every Prophet conveyed it to his people, until Jeremiah handed it down to Baruch who passed it to Ezra, and Ezra communicated it to the scholars of whom Simon the just was last. Simon handed it down to Antigonus who gave it to Jose, the son of Johanan. He passed it to Jose, the son of Joezer. He conveyed it to Nathan the Aurelite and Joshua, the son of Berechiah. These two passed it to Joshua’s son Judah and Simon son of Shetah. They passed it to Shemaiah and Abtalion, these two to Hillel, and he to his son Simon. This Simon is supposed to be the one who took Jesus in his arms when Mary had brought him to the temple after her confinement. This Simon then passed it to his son Gamaliel. He is the one from whom Paul leamt it. Then he passed it to Simon, who in turn passed it to Rabbi Judah haNasi. This Judah then collected them into a book which he called the

Mishnah. Adam Clarke has observed that the Jews hold this book in great reverence and believe that its contents are divine and a revelation from God, revealed to Moses along with the Torah. It is also established that the teaching of this book has been a common practice among the Jews right from the time it came into existence. Scholars and great theologians have written commentaries on this book, two of which occupy pride of place with them. The first exegetical work was written in Jerusalem in the third century AD, while the second commentary was written in Babylon around the beginning of the sixth century AD. Both of

them are named “Gemara” i.e. the Perfection. They believe that the two commentaries have fully elucidated the text of the Mishnah. These two commentaries and the text of the Mishnah together are called the Talmud. To distinguish between the two commentaries, one is called the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud and the other the Babylonian Talmud. The complete teachings and instructions of modern Judaism are contained by these two books, which are separate and distinct from the books of the Prophets. Since the Jerusalem Talmud is comparatively more complicated, the Babylonian

Talmud is more commonly read and followed. Horne said in chapter 7 of the second volume of his commentary printed in 1822 that the Mishnah is a book comprising the Jewish traditions and commentary on the texts of the sacred books. They believe that these traditions were also given by God to Moses along with the Torah. Moses passed them down to Aaron. From Aaron they were communicated to Joshua and Eleazer and other elders and then they were handed down from generation to generation until they found their way to Simon. This Simon was the same who took Jesus in his arms. He gave it to Gamaliel who passed them to Juda haNasi. With great pain and labour he took about forty years to collect them in the form of a book in the second century. Since that time it has been in vogue among the Jews. This

book is very often more venerated than the written Law itself.

4 He further added that there are two commentaries on the Mishnah both of which are known as Gemara, one of them being the Jerusalem Gemara, supposed by some scholars to have been written in Jerusalem in the third century, and according to Father Insoue in the fifth century, while the other is known as the Babylonian Gemara written in Babylon in the sixth century. This Gemara is full of fabulous legends and stories, but it is more respected by the Jews than the other. It is more emphatically taught and followed by them. They turn to it with great certitude to seek guidance when they find themselves in trouble. The name ’Gemara’ signifies Perfection. They think that this book is the perfection of the Torah, and that it is not possible for any other commentary to be better than this, and it satisfies all possible demands of the faith. When the Jerusalem Gemara is added to the text together they are called the Jerusalem

Talmud 113.

The above sufficiently proves the following four points:

Verbal tradition is venerated among the Jews as much as the Pentateuch; rather they sometimes prefer the oral tradition to the Torah. They believe that the oral tradition is like the spirit while the written law is like the body. This being the status of the Pentateuch, one can

guess the status of other books among them.

Secondly, we understand from the above that the oral tradition was first collected and written by Judah ha-Nasi in the second century, implying that for 1700 years it was conveyed through human memory. During this period the Jews had to undergo the great calamities of their history. That is to say, the invasions of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus and Titus all belong to this period. It is already known historically that the sacred books were destroyed and the continuity of the traditions was badly affected as we discussed earlier in this book. Despite all that, they are still held in more

veneration than the Pentateuch.

Thirdly these oral traditions have been reported from generation to generation by single reporters. For example Gamaliel I and II and Simon I, II and III. They were not even Prophets according to the Jews, and were the worst kind of infidels and deniers of Christ as claimed by the Christians. These traditions, though transmitted through single reporters, are supposed to be the basis of their faith,

113 The Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, are both further divided into two parts. The first part consists of 613 commandments while the second part is a collection of traditions and stories. (Taqi)

4 while according to the Islamic science of traditions, any tradition transmitted through a single reporter termed as Khabar al-Wahid is

not allowed to be used as a source of any article of faith.

Fourthly, we understand that the Babylonian Gemara was written in the sixth century, and according to Home “this collection of absurd legends and stories” remained purely in the form of oral tradition for two thousand years, being transmitted through the generations

purely by memory.

Eusebius, whose historical work is considered authentic equally by the Catholics and the Protestants, said in chapter 9 of the second volume of his book

printed in 1848 under the description of Jacob:

In writing about Jacob, Clement cited an anecdote in book seven that is worth remembering. Clement reported this from the oral tradition that was

transmitted to him from his forefathers.

He also cited a statement of Irenaeus on page 123 of the third chapter of his

third book:

The council of Ephesus, erected by Paul and in which the apostle John stayed until the rule of Trajan, is a strong wit- ness to the traditions of the

apostles.

He cited the following statement of Clement on the same page:

Attend to the tradition of the disciple John which is beyond doubt and

true and has been preserved orally throughout

He again said on page 124 of chapter 24 of the third book:

The number of Christ’s disciples, like his apostles, is twelve, then there are seventy Prophets, and many others who were not ignorant of the events referred to (that is, the events recorded by the evangelists), but out of them only John and Matthew have included them. It is known through oral

traditions that their inclusion of these events was out of necessity.

On page 132 of chapter 28 of his third book he again says:

Irenaeus has included a story in his third book which is worth recording.

He received this story from Polycarp through oral tradition.

4 Again he says on page 147, chapter 5 of the fourth book:

I have not read about the bishops of Jerusalem in any book but it is

established through oral tradition that they stayed there for some time.

He also says on page 138 of chapter 36 of the third book:

We came to know through oral tradition that Ignatius, being a Christian, was carried to Greece to be offered to carnivorous animals. He was conveyed under army protection. The people of all the churches that were on his way sought strength through his sermons and admonishments. He preached to them against the heresy that was common in that time and told them to hold firmly to the oral tradition. He wrote down the oral tradition for preservation

and stamped it with his name.

Again he says on page 142, chapter 39 of his third book:

Papias said in the introduction to his work, “I write for your benefit all the things that I received from the elders which I preserved after thorough inquiry into their authenticity, so that my testimony may be an additional proof of their truth. Usually I do not like to accept the tradition from those who frequently relate absurd stories. I have received the tradition only from those who know nothing except what has been reported truthfully from our Lord. Whenever I met any of the disciples of the elders, I necessarily asked them what had been said by Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Jacob, Matthew or any other disciple of our Lord because I was benefited more by oral

tradition than by the sacred books.

Further he said in chapter 8 of his fourth book on page 151:

Hegesippus is a renowned name among Church historians. I have cited many passages from his books that he reported from the disciples through oral tradition. This author collected, in five books, laws of the disciples

transmitted to him through oral tradition.

In chapter 14, page 158 of the same book he reported a statement of Irenaeus

about Polycarp:

Polycarp has always preached the doctrines that he received orally from

the disciples or from the Church.

Again on page 201, chapter 6 of book 5 he said, listing the bishops of Rome:

4 This chain of bishops extends up to Bishop Antherus, who is nineteenth in this sequence. We received it through reliable and true sources from the

disciples, transmitted to us through oral tradition.

He again cites the statement of Clement on page 206, chapter 8 of the fifth

book:

I have not written these books to project myself or to show off my knowledge, rather, it is in consideration of my old age and to correct my shortcomings. I have collected them as elaboration of the texts. They may be considered as commentary on the inspired books. Among those who raised me to this high position and greatness and placed me among the truthful and the blessed was Janicus of Greece and another was in Magna Graecia. Some others were from the East, while one was from Syria, one was a Hebrew from Palestine, and the master that I reached last was in Egypt living an ascetic life. He was superior to all the other teachers. I did not feel like seeing other masters after him, as no teacher better than him existed on earth. These elders had preserved the traditions orally communicated from Paul,

James, and John through the generations.

He also reports the following statement of Irenaeus on page 219, chapter 20,

of the fifth book:

By the grace of God I have listened to those traditions attentively and imprinted them on my memory instead of writing them on paper. For a long period it has been my practice to recite them faithfully for the sake of

preserving them.

Again on page 222, chapter 24 of the fifth book he said:

Bishop Polycrates wrote an oral tradition in his epistle to the church of

Rome and to Victor. This tradition was transmitted to him orally.

He also said on page 226, chapter 25 of the fifth book:

The Bishops of Palestine like Narcotius, Theophilius and Cassius, and bishops Ptolemy and Clarus and other bishops that accompanied them presented many things with regard to the tradition related to the Passover, transmitted to them orally from the disciples through generations. All of them wrote at the end of the book that the copies of this book be sent to all

churches, so that the book might help the churches save the renegades.

4 He again said on page 246, chapter 13 of the sixth book under the account of

Clement of Alexandria, who was the follower of the disciples of Christ:

Africanus wrote a booklet which still exists in which he tried to explain away the inconsistencies found in the genealogical descriptions given by Matthew and Luke through the oral traditions received by him from his

forefathers.

The above seventeen statements sufficiently prove that the ancient Christians had great trust in oral tradition. John Milner, who was a Catholic, said in the

tenth letter of his book printed in Derby:

I have already said that the basis of the Catholic faith is not only the written word of God. The word of God is general, written or not written. That is to say, the sacred books and the oral tradition as interpreted by

Catholic Church.

Further in the same letter he says:

Irenaeus observed in part three and chapter five of his book that simplest way for the seekers of the truth is to search for the oral traditions of the

apostles and preach them in the world.

Again in the same letter he says:

Irenaeus said in part one chapter three of his book that in spite of the difference of people’s languages, the essence and reality of the traditions is always the same at all places. The teachings and doctrines of the Church of Germany are not different from the teachings of the Churches of France,

Spain, the East, Egypt and Libya

Further he said in the same letter:

Irenaeus observed in chapter two of part three of his book, “Prolixity does not allow me to give a detailed account of all the Churches. Catholicism, however, will be considered as the standard faith which is the oldest of all and the most popular, and was founded by Peter and Paul. All the other Churches also follow it, because all the oral traditions reported by the

disciples through generations are preserved in Catholic Church.

The same letter also contains the following:

4 Even if we take it as granted for a moment that the disciples left no writing after them, we are bound to follow the doctrines transmitted to us through oral traditions of the disciples who handed them down to the people to be conveyed to the Church. There are the traditions that are followed by the illiterate people who believed in Christ without the help of ink and

letters.

Again he said in the same letter:

Tertullian said on pages 36 and 37 of his book written by him against the heretics: it is usual for heretics to derive their arguments only from the sacred books, and claim that nothing else other than the sacred books can provide the basis for faith. They deceive people through this approach. We, therefore, insist that they should not be allowed to seek their arguments from the sacred books. Because through this kind of approach we cannot expect any good other than racking our brains. It is therefore wrong to rely on the sacred books, as no definite conclusion can be achieved through them, anything derived from them will be defective. Besides, the correct approach demands that first it should be decided to whom these books should be attributed? We must know about the books that decide our being Christians as to who transmitted them to whom and when? Because the truth of the evangels and the doctrines of Christianity are found only in the form of oral

traditions.

Again in the same letter he said:

Origen said that it was not proper to rely on the people who cite from the sacred books and say that the word of God is before you to read and probe into, or that we should believe in something else other than communicated to

us by the Church through consistent oral tradition.

Further in the same letter he said:

Basilides said that there are many Christian doctrines preserved by the Church and often presented in sermons. Some of them have been borrowed from the sacred books, while others are based on oral tradition. Both of them are equal in value. There can be no objection against this from any one

having a little knowledge of Christian faith.

Further he said in the same letter:

4 Epiphanius said in his book written against the heretics that it was necessary to rely on the oral tradition as the sacred books do not contain

everything.

He also said in the same letter:

Under his comments on II Thessalonians 2:14, John Chrysostom said, “This proves that the disciples did not convey to us everything through writing, but they had transmitted to us many things orally. Both are of equal value. It is therefore our opinion that the tradition of the Church is only the basis of faith. When we find anything proved by oral tradition, we need not

seek anything else to prove it.

Further he says in the same letter:

Augustine, favouring a man baptised by heretics, said that although no written authority could be presented in its favour, it should be noted that this custom was started through oral tradition. Because there are many things that are acknowledged by the Church as being suggested by the disciples, though

they are not in writing.

He also said in the same letter:

The bishop Vincentius observed that heretics should explain the sacred

books according to the general tradition of the Church.

The above statements sufficiently prove that the oral traditions are considered to be the basis of faith by the Catholics as well as by the ancients. We find the following statement on page 63 of volume 3 of the Catholic

Herald:

Rabbi Dosi cited many observations to prove that the text of the sacred books cannot be comprehended without the help of oral tradition. The elders of the Catholics have followed it in all times. Tertullian said that it was necessary to follow the Churches founded by the disciples for understanding the teachings of Christ. They transmitted them to the Churches through oral

tradition.

The above statements are enough to establish that the traditions are more respected by the Jews than the Torah. Similarly it is confirmed that all the ancient Christians like Clement, Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Polycarp, Polycrates, Arksius, Theophilus, Cassius, Clarus, Alexandrius, Africanus, Tertullian, Origen, Basilides, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine and bishop Vincentius 4 attached great respect to the oral traditions. Ignatius insisted before his death on holding fast to the oral traditions. Similarly Clement wrote in his history of the

elders:

They memorised the true traditions that were transmitted through

generations from Peter, James, John and Paul.

Epiphanius observed that he benefitted more from the oral traditions than the

sacred books. We have already cited the opinions of Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian etc. to establish that the oral traditions and the sacred books are held by them to be equal in value. Basilides declared that the doctrines derived by oral tradition have a value equal to that derived by the sacred books. He said that the oral

tradition was the basis of Christian faith. Augustine also confirms that there are many doctrines that are acknowledged by the Church as being ordained by the disciples while they are not found in any texts. It is therefore not justified to reject all the traditions. The Gospels

themselves uphold oral tradition.

The Gospels and Oral Tradition

The Gospel of Mark 4:34 contains the following:

But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone,

he expounded all things to his disciples

It is unthinkable that none of these were transmitted by them to the people. It is all the more impossible to suggest that the disciples should depend on those

traditions while the people of our time should not.

The Gospel of John 21:25 says:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not

contain the books that should be written.

Though the above statement is an exaggeration, there is no doubt that there must be many things that Jesus did in his life, be they miracles or other acts that

might have not been written down by the disciples.

We read in II Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been

taught, whether by word or by our epistle.

4 The last sentence is clear in implying that part of Christ’s teachings were communicated orally and another in writing, both of them equally valuable

according to Chrysostom. I Corinthians 11:34 (Arabic version 1844) has:

And the rest will I set in order when I come.

It is obvious that, since the commands promised by Paul in the above

statement are not found in writing, they must have been communicated orally

II Timothy 1:13 says:

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hadst heard of me, in faith

and love which is in Christ Jesus.

The phrase, “Which thou hadst heard of me, ”clearly indicates that some teachings were communicated orally by him. The same letter contains the

following in 2:2:

And the things that thou hadst heard of me among many witnesses, the

same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

II John also says at the end:

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy be full 114.

And at the end of the Third Epistle of John we find:

I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face 115.

The above two verses give us to understand that John taught many things

orally as he promised. Now those things can only have been passed on orally. In view of the above, it is clearly sheer ignorance for any Protestant to deny the status and value of the oral tradition. Any such claim would be a claim against the sacred books and the decisions of the ancient Christians, and according to some of them such a claimant should be considered a heretic. Besides, Protestants owe many doctrines invented by their elders to oral tradition, for example their belief that the Son is equal to the Father in his essence; that the Holy Ghost’s existence is through the Son and the Father; that

114 II John 12 115 III John 13-14 4 Christ is one person possessing two natures at the same time; that he has two wills, human and divine; and that he entered hell after his death. In fact none of these absurdities can be found in the New Testament. The inclusion of all such

concepts in their faith comes only through oral tradition. This denial of oral tradition also entails the denial of some parts of the sacred books. For example, the Gospels of Mark and Luke and nineteen chapters of the book of Acts were written through oral tradition. They were not written through revelation or through vision, as we have discussed in an earlier volume. Similarly five chapters (5 to 9) of the Book of Proverbs would also be denied because they were collected through those oral traditions that were current in the time of Hezekiah. The compilation of these chapters are separated by two hundred and seventy years from the death of the Prophet Solomon. We read in

the Book of Proverbs 25:1:

These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of

Judah copied out.

The following are the comments of Adam Clarke on the above verse as

found in his commentary printed in 1801:

It seems that the Proverbs referred to above were collected under the orders of Hezekiah from the oral traditions that were current among them from the time of Solomon. Afterwards they were added as a supplement to this book. Probably Hezekiah’s friends were Isaiah and Sophanias who were among the Prophets of those times. In that case this supplement would also acquire the status of the other books, otherwise it would have not been

included in the sacred books.

The above provides sufficient proof that oral traditions were collected under the orders of the King Hezekiah. His presumption that those copiers were also Prophets cannot be accepted unless it is sup- ported by some reliable authority or convincing arguments which the author has not provided. Again his premise that their inclusion in the sacred books should be a proof that the copiers were Prophets is obviously a wrong conclusion because the oral traditions are held in respect by the Jews than the Torah itself. The present Torah was collected nearly 1700 years after the collection of the oral tradition, which is acknowledged by the Jews as the word of God. Similarly they accept the Babylonian Gemara as an authentic book, though the traditions it contains were collected 200 years later. There was nothing to stop them from including these

five chapters in the sacred books.

4 What Protestant Scholars Say

Some Protestant scholars have honestly admitted that the oral traditions are

as authentic as the sacred books. The Catholic Herald vol. 2 page 63 has:

Dr. Bright, a distinguished Protestant scholar, said on page 63 of his book that it is evident from the sacred book that the Christian faith was transmitted to the followers of the disciples and the early bishops through oral tradition, and they were asked to preserve it and convey it to the succeeding generations. We do not find any evidence in the books, be it from Paul or any other disciple, that they had individually or collectively written all the things related to our salvation. There is no indication that every essential doctrine necessary for salvation is confined only to the written law. On pages 32 and 33, he tells you that you already know that Paul and other disciples have transmitted the tradition to us not only in writing but also as verbal statements. So those are lost who do not preserve both of them. The oral tradition concerning the Christian faith is equally trustworthy and acceptable. The Bishop Munich 116. said that the oral traditions of the disciples are as acceptable as are their epistles and other writings. No Protestant can deny the fact that the oral traditions of the disciples are superior to their writings. Chilingworth has said that the dispute about which Gospel is canon and which is not can be decided through oral tradition which is a reasonable

source to resolve any dispute.

The bishop Thomas Inglis in his book Miraatu-Sidq printed in 1851 said on

pages 180 and 181:

Bishop Maniseek, a Protestant scholar, observed that there are six hundred precepts, ordained by God and followed by the Church that are not

stated in the sacred books.

This proves that six hundred precepts are based on oral tradition and they are

followed by the Protestants. It is human nature that an extraordinary or unusual event leaves a lasting impression on human mind while usual and routine events are not permanently stored in memory. For example a rare event like the appearance of a comet will be remembered by those who saw it. On the other hand they would not be able

to say exactly what food they had eaten three or four days ago. Since the memorization of the Holy Qur’an has been a matter of the greatest significance in every age for the Muslims, there has always been a large number

116 I doubt the spelling of this name as the Arabic and Urdu equivalents are incompatible. (Raazi).

4 of people who have learnt the whole of the Qur’anic text by heart. They are called hafiz. More than one hundred thousand such hafiz are present in our time in the Muslim countries, in spite of the fact that Islam does not rule over those countries. There are always more than one thousand hafiz in the University of Al-Azhar, Egypt alone, not to speak of Egyptian villages, where even cart drivers and loaders are frequently fully qualified hafiz who have memorised the whole of the Qur’anic text 117. These ordinary men are certainly superior in this respect to the bishops of the Christian world. We are sure that even ten such

hafiz of the Bible cannot be found throughout the Christian world. It is a fact that anything important and of significance is imprinted and preserved easily in a way which is not affected by the passage of time. The Holy Qur’an alone fulfils the requirement of being completely unaltered and miraculously genuine. Throughout these twelve hundred and eighty years 118, the Holy Qur’an was not only preserved in writing but also in human hearts. Besides, the recitation of the Qur’anic text is in itself a part of Islamic worship and a usual practice of the Muslims, while the recitation of the Bible is not a

ritual practice among Christians. One of the Protestant scholars, Michael Mechaka, observed on page 316 of

his book, Kitab-ad-Dalil of 1849:

One day I asked a Catholic priest to tell me honestly how many times he had read the sacred book in full in his life. He said that in his early age he had read it many times in full but for the last twelve years he could not spare

any time for reading it as he was busy serving the Christian brethren.

A Historical View of the Hadith Collections

The traditions (Hadiths) are held to be authentic and acceptable by Muslims if they are found to be in accordance with the laws and regulations that we shall

soon discuss. The following is a standing commandment of the Holy Prophet:

Be careful in reporting a hadith from me unless you have learnt (from me) abstain from reporting other things. Anyone reporting a falsehood in my

name knowingly shall have his abode in fire

The above tradition is mutawatir (having a large number of reporters in every period right from the time of the Holy Prophet) having been reported by not less than sixty-two Companions of the Holy Prophet. The above warning

117 There must be more than a hundred thousand hafiz in the Indo-Pak subcontinent in our time, that is 1988 (Raazi) 118 Now 1409 years. (Raazi)

4 coming from the Holy Prophet was enough for the companions to be extremely careful in reporting traditions from the Holy Prophet. History has recorded unique examples of the extreme scrupulousness of the Muslims and their being highly prudent in maintaining the highest standard of accuracy in reporting the traditions, something that is certainly not present in case of Christian tradition. For certain positive reasons the Companions of the Holy Prophet did not collect the traditions in the form of books. One of the reasons was that the revelation of the Holy Qu’ran was in progress and being written down by the Companions. To avoid any possible mixing of the Qur’anic text with the tradition they did not

collect the traditions in book form 119. However, they were collected later by the disciples of the Companions like Imam Zuhri, Rabi‘ ibn Sabih and Sa’id etc. Still they did not arrange their collections according to the standard arrangement of the jurisprudents. Later, all the subsequent scholars adopted a standard arrangement in their great works. In Madina, the great Imam Malik compiled his collection known as Muwatta’. Imam Malik was born in 95 AH. In Makka a collection was compiled by Abu Muhammad ‘Abdul-Malik ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz Ibn Jurayj. In Kufa, Sufyan ath- Thawri compiled his work while in Basra, Hammad ibn Salma also compiled

his collection. Then Bukhari and Muslim made their collections for their books, including only sahih hadiths of the Prophet and did not allow any tradition that was not qualified as sahih. Muslim hadith scholars invested great labour and took great pains in maintaining the accuracy of the prophetic traditions. A new branch of knowledge was initiated known as Asma’ ur-Rijal, that is the biographies of each and every reporter of hadith right from the Companion to the present time. It helped them know everything about a particular reporter in the chain of reporters of any single tradition. All the collections known as Sihah (the books containing only sahih hadiths) were so compiled by their authors that each and every statement is prefixed with complete chain of reporters starting from the author to the Holy Prophet himself. There are some hadiths reported by Bukhari

that have only three names between him and the Holy Prophet.

Three Kinds of Hadith

The sahih hadiths are further divided into three kinds:

119 In spite of the above reservations there were many collections of traditions written down by the Companions of the Holy Prophet. According to Abu Dawud, the companion ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘As wrote down traditions with the permission of the Holy Prophet himself (Jam’ al-Fawa’id vol 1, page 26). It is stated that this collection was named As-Sahiha Al- Sadiqa. A collection of traditions compiled by Humam Ibn Munabbih has been recently discovered which was dictated to him by the Companion Abu Hurayra which proves that the traditions were written down in the time of the Companions. For more details see Tadveen-e- Hadith by Sheikh Munazir Ahsan Geelani. (Taqi).

4 (1) Mutawatir: A mutawatir hadith is a hadith that is reported by such a large number of people at every stage of transmission so that their agreement on a false statement is denied by human reason. Examples of these are the hadith describing the number of rak’ats (genuflexion) in salat or specifying the

amount to be paid in zakat.

(2) Mash-hur: This kind of tradition is the one that was reported by a single Companion of the Holy Prophet but at later stages, that is, in the time of the followers of the Companions or in the time of their disciples, it became famous and was generally accepted by the Ummah. Now from this stage onward it was reported by a large number of people, so attaining the status of mutawatir. For example, the injunction describing the punishment of fomication through stoning to death.

(3) Khabar al-wahid: This kind of hadith is the one that is reported by a single reporter to an individual or to a group of people, or a group of people reported it to an

individual. Now the knowledge imparted through a mutawatir hadith is always undeniable and certain. Denial of this kind of hadith constitutes unbelief. The mashhur hadith satisfies all the doubts and creates satisfaction. Anyone denying

this kind of hadith is not an unbeliever but a heretic and a sinner. Khabar al-wahid does not impart knowledge as certain as in the above two examples. Though it cannot be a source of beliefs and basic doctrines it is acceptable in practical injunctions. If it happens to run counter to a stronger source, effort must be made to reconcile the two. If this effort fails then this

kind of hadith should be abandoned.

Distinction between Qur’an and Hadith

There are three kinds of distinctions between the Holy Qur’an and hadith: Firstly, the whole of the Qur’anic text is a mutawatir report. It has been reported verbatim and exactly as it was revealed to the Holy Prophet, without the alteration of a single word or replacing any word by a synonym. Whereas the sahih hadith was allowed to be reported by an expert and qualified reporter

in his own words 120.

120 This implies that the actual words spoken by the Holy Prophet are not reported, but the message is transmitted faithfully in the reporter’s own words.

4 Secondly, since the whole of the Qur’anic text is mutawatir, the denial of a single sentence of the Qur’an is an act of infidelity while the denial of hadith,

mutawatir excepted, is not an act of infidelity 121. Thirdly, there are many injunctions that are directly related to the words of the Qur’anic text, like salat or the miraculous nature of the Qur’anic words, whereas the words of the hadith are not directly related to any injunctions they

might contain. In view of the above, it should be sufficiently clear that it is in no way against logic or human reason to rely upon the traditions, specially when they

are reported through a constant chain of reliable reporters.

Objection Raised against the Holy Traditions

There are five main objections by the Christians against the authenticity of

the Holy Traditions.

First Objection

Since the reporters of the holy traditions were either the relatives of the Prophet Muhammad like his wives and other kinsmen, or his Companions and

friends, their witness in favour of the Prophet is not acceptable. We are afraid that this very objection stares into the eyes of the Christians very threateningly because all the early account of Jesus recorded by the evangelists in their gospels are reported either by his mother or stepfather, Joseph the Carpenter, or his disciples, therefore all these account must not be acceptable. As for their contention that the faith of the relatives and the Companions of the Holy Prophet was not genuine because they showed their faith in the Prophet only for the sake of acquiring political power and other worldly interests, the baselessness of this objection is more than obvious for the reason that the first thirteen years of the Prophetic mission in Makka were full of distress and afflictions for the Muslims. The faithful Muslims were constantly persecuted by the idol-worshippers of Makka. Their life was so much endangered in Makka that they had to leave their homeland first for Ethiopia and then Madina. Under these circumstances, it is unimaginable that they could think of acquiring wealth or any kind of worldly power through the Holy

Prophet. This might, however, be true in the case of the disciples of Jesus, all of whom were poor labourers. They were told by the Jews that the Messiah would

121 It may be noted that the denial of mashhur and khabar al-wahid is not an act of infidelity, but any one denying the hadith altogether as a source of knowledge is declared an infidel by all the schools of thought. In the same way a Christian is not excommunicated for claiming that a particular verse of the Bible is a later addition, but he will be declared infidel if he disbelieves the Bible as a whole. (Taqi).

4 be a great king. When Jesus declared that he was the promised Messiah, they might well have expressed belief in him in order to attain worldly positions in his kingdom and to get rid of their present labours of fishing and other things 122. Specially given the following promise of Jesus made them as reported by

Matthew in chapter 19:

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes

of Israel 123.

Similarly he promised them in these words according to Mark 10:29-30:

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an

hundredfold now in this time.

There are many other promises that Jesus made to his disciples. The disciples, therefore, were sure they were going to get a share in his kingdom and possessions, and rule over the tribes of the Israelites, or at least a hundredfold of everything they had left for their faith. They were so certain of this promise that James and John, the sons of Zabedee, or their mother demanded ministry in his kingdom, so that one of them should sit on the right hand of Jesus and other on his left in his kingdom. This can be verified from chapter 20 of Matthew and

chapter 10 of Mark. Later, when the disciples realised that no possibility of such a existed and that Jesus himself was as poor and without money as he was before and they saw Jesus hiding himself out of fear of the Jews; and that the Jews were after his life, all their expectations were frustrated and they were utterly disappointed 124. One of the disciples even went as far as to betray Jesus for only thirty pieces of silver and had him arrested by the Jews. The rest of the disciples not only left him alone but also denied him three times. Peter, the founder of the Church and most high among the disciples, even cursed Jesus and swore falsely that he did not know him. In short, they were all disappointed until the resurrection of Jesus when they revived their hopes once again and gathered

122 The author refers to Peter who earns his living through fishing. (Taqi) 123 Matt. 19:28 124 Our author is not expressing his own thought or the thought of the Muslims rather he is refuting the objection in their own language by citing examples from the test, otherwise all Muslims believe that all the disciples of Jesus were sincere and had pure faith in Jesus. (Raazi)

4 around him and asked him if the Israelites would then be able to regain the lost

kingdom. See the first chapter of the book of Acts for details. After the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven they clung to the more alluring idea that Jesus would soon descend from heaven, and that the Last Day was at hand and Jesus would kill the Antichrist and imprison the Devil for a thousand years. After this they would sit on thrones and live luxurious lives all those years. This is stated in the Book of Revelation (Chapter 19,20) and I Corinthians 6:2. Then after the Second Coming, they would enter Paradise for eternal happiness. The

Evangelists made exaggerations in his praise. The four Gospel says:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not

contain the books that should be written.

Every sensible man can see the exaggeration in this statement. Therefore their witness in favour of Jesus cannot be considered acceptable. We need not repeat the fact that the above is not our belief, we have said it only to show the poverty of imagination behind the above objection against hadiths. As the above assumptions will not be acceptable to the Christians, similarly they are

unacceptable if applied to the Companions of the Holy Prophet.

Argumentation through Shi’ite Statements

There are occasions when Christian scholars try to create doubts among the people through the false and fabricated statements of Shi’ite writers. Such

objections can be refuted both dialectically and academically.

First Answer 125

The renowned historian Mosheim said in the first volume of his book:

The Ebionites, a Christian sect of the first century, had the belief that Jesus was only a human being, born of his parents Joseph and Mary, like other human beings. They held that the observance of the Law of Moses was obligatory not only for the Jews but also was necessary equally for others and that no salvation was possible without practicing the Law of Moses. Since Paul did not agree with this belief, he was highly criticized and

disapprobated. His writing are not respected by them.

125 Here the author reproduces the statements of various Christian sects refuting the acknowledged doctrines of Christianity simply to show that they are rejected by the Christians because they are the various views of heretics or disacknowledged sects. The same holds true to all the references to the Shi’ite literature. The Shi’ites are not regarded as regular Muslims throughout the Islamic world. (Raazi)

4 Lardner said on page 376 of vol. 2 of his book:

We have been informed by the ancients that this sect strictly rejected Paul

and his epistles.

Similarly Bell described them in his history in these words:

This sect acknowledges only Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Prophets Solomon, David, Jeremiah and Hezekiel were held abomination by them. Out of the New Testament only the Gospel of Matthew is acknowledged by them, but they have distorted its text in many places. They

have excluded the first two chapters of his Gospel.

The same historian, Bell, described the Marcionites in his history ib these

words:

This sect believes in two gods; the creator of good and the creator of evil. They also claim that the Pentateuch and all other books of the Old Testament are from the God of evil. All of them are against the books of the New

Testament.

He further said:

They also believe that Jesus entered hell after his death and released the souls of Cain and the People of Sodom as they submitted to him and did not follow the God of evil. He left the souls of Abel, Noah, Abraham and others in hell as they were his opponents. They also believe that the creator God is not alone the God who sent Jesus, therefore they do not accept that the books of the Old Testament are inspired books. Out of the New Testament they accept only the Gospel of Matthew with the exception of the first two chapters of this gospel. They also acknowledge the epistles of Paul but reject

anything they find contrary to their opinion.

Lardner quoted the following statement of Augustine under his description

of Manichaeans in the third volume of his commentary:

The God who revealed the Torah to Moses and spoke with the Israelites was not God but Satan. Though this sect accepts the books of the Old Testament, it at the same time admits that additions have been made in these books. They only accept what they like of these books and reject what they do not like. They accept the apocryphal books as being certainly true and

genuine.

4 Further in the same volume Lardner said:

The people of this sect never acknowledge the books of Old Testament.

The beliefs of the people of this sect were described in the Acts of Archillas

as follows:

Satan deceived the Prophets of Jews and he was the one who spoke with Moses and other prophets. They derive their argument for this claim from John 10:8 126 in which Jesus said that they were thieves and plunderers.

They rejected the New Testament.

Similar views are held by many other sects. Now we may well ask the Protestant scholars if they agree with the views expressed in the above statements? If so, they should declare that the following ten beliefs are part of

their faith:

(1) Jesus was only human born of Joseph the Carpenter. (2) Practising the Law of Moses is essential for their salvation. (3) Paul was dishonest and his statements are essentially to be rejected. (4) There are only two gods, the creator of good and the creator of evil. (5) The souls of Cain and of the people of Sodom were released from hell through the death of Jesus while the souls of Abel, Noah, Abraham and

others remained there to suffer the punishment of hell.

(6) The Prophets were the followers of Satan. (7) The Torah and other books of the Old Testament are from Satan. (8) It was Satan, not God, who conversed with Moses and other Prophets. (9) The books of the New Testament have been distorted through latter

additions. (10) Some apocryphal books are true and genuine.

If the statements of the above three sects are not acceptable to the Protestant how can they justify their objection against the Muslims on the basis of statements from people who are, according to authentic arguments of the whole

Muslim ummah, a sect?

Second Answer

Academically speaking, their argumentation on the basis of the statements of Shi’ite scholars is false because, according to the Ithna-‘Ashari (the Twelvers)

126 “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers:” John 10:8 (Taqi)

4 sect of the Shi’ites, the Holy Qur’an is free from all kinds of distortion and changes. Any isolated statement claiming contrary to it strictly rejected and denied by the Ithna-‘Ashari scholars. The following statements of the Shi’ite

scholars should be more than enough to establish our claim. Shaykh Saduq Muhammad ibn Babuyah was one of the great scholars of the Twelvers, the Ithna-‘Ashari sect of the Shi’ites. He said in his book Al-

A’taqadiya:

Our belief with regard to the Holy Qur’an is that the Qur’an in thye hands of the people today is the same Qur’an that was revealed to the Holy Prophet and there is nothing different in it except that the number of surahs of the Holy Qur’an is generally held to be 114 while we believe that surahs Al- Duha and Al-Inshirah 127 bare not two separate surahs but together they are one. Similarly surahs Al-Quraysh and Al-Fil are one surah altogether.

Anyone ascribing to us anymore than this is a liar.

Majma’ al-Bayan is considered by the Shi’ites to be the most reliable exegies of the Holy Qur’an. In this book Sayyed Murtaza Abu’l-Qasim ‘Ali ibn

Husain Musawi said:

The collection of the Holy Qur’an in the time of the Holy Prophet was

exactly in nthe same form as it is today.

He based his argument on the fact that it was taught and was memorized by people in that period as a whole. He enumerated a large number of Companions who were hafiz. He also added that the Holy Qur’an was repeatedly recited before the Holy Prophet. He pointed out that there were many Companions like ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’ab etc. who completed the recitation of the whole Qur’an a number of times before the Holy Prophet. All the above events were, in his opinion, a strong indication that the Holy Qur’an was present

in the form of a collection in the time of the Holy Prophet. He also refuted that Imamiya 128 sect of the Shi’ites and said that their views contrary to the Qur’an are not acceptable since they have trusted some unreliable and weak traditions that were reported by some Muhaddiths because

they thought them to be correct. Sayyed Murtaza said in another place:

127 That is the surahs 93 and 94. (Raazi) 128 The Imamiya was the most rigid and obstinate sect of the Shi’ites who claimed that the Companion Ali was the only person who truly deserved the caliphate after the Holy Prophet. To them all the other caliphs were wrong. Some of them even claim and believed that the Holy Qur’an had undergone distortions. They also derogated and disparaged some of the great Companions of the Prophet. See Al-Milal we Al-Nihal pages 259-265 vol. 1 4 The certainty and knowledge of the authenticity of the Qur’an is equal to the certainty that we have about the great cities of the world, great historic

events, or the great literary compositions of the Arabs etc.

This is because of the high involvement of the Muslims in preservation and authentically transmitting the Holy Qur’an. Since the Holy Qur’an has the status of a Prophetic miracle and is the source of divine law, Muslim scholars have always invested great labour and taken unusual pains in its word-by-word memorization, along with ensuring its genuine pronunciation and precise notations and phonetics. In the presence of the above factors even the slightest

change in its text was unimaginable. A renowned scholar of the Shi’ites, Qazi Nurullah Shostri, said in his book,

Masaib-u-Nawasib:

The view of the Qur’anic distortion ascribed to the Imamites (Imamiya Sect) cannot be ascribed to the majority of the Shi’ites people. This view is

held only by a disrespected and isolated few.

Mulla said in his commentary on Kalini 129:

At the appearance o0f the twelfth Imam, the Holy Qur’an will appear and

be known with the same order and arrangement.

Muhammad Ibn Hasan Amili, a great ‘muhaddith’ (hadith scholar) of the Imamites, has said in one of his books, while making some criticism on some of

his contemporaries:

A through historical research and elaborate quest of events leads us to the sure conclusion that the Holy Qur’an enjoys the highest degree of uninterrupted historical authenticity. Thousands of the Companions used to memorize it and convey it to others. It had been collected and compiled in

the time of the Holy Prophet.

The above statements sufficiently prove that the Shi’ites scholars in general have no doubt that the version of the Holy Qur’an, which is in out hands today, is exactly the same as was revealed to the Holy Prophet, and that at the appearance of the twelfth Imam the same Qur’an will be publicised among people. The few writers who have the view that there is distortion in the Holy Qur’an are not considered reliable and are strictly rejected by the Shi’ites themselves because the traditions that support their view are inauthentic and not

129 Muhammad Ya’qub Kalini is a great Shi’ite scholar. His book Al-Kafi is considered the most authentic book on Shi’ite law and tradition. (Taqi)

4 reliable in the face of the undeniable reports which prove to the highest degree its genuineness. This is also true because knowledge that is derived by al- khabar al-wahid (the single report) has to be rejected if it is not supported by more certain arguments. This is explained by Ibn Al-Mutahhar Al-Hilli in his

book Mabadi’ al-Wasul ila ‘Ilm al-Usul. Now, once the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an has been setabished, we must be allowed to cite the Qur’anic evidence to support our belief that the Companions of the Holy Prophet, in general, never committed a single act

against Imam, fidelity to Islam and the Holy Prophet. The following Qur’anic verses are sufficient to prove our our claim particularly with regard to the Shi’ite assertion of the superiority of ‘Ali over the

other caliphs.

First Proof

The first Muhajireen and those who gave them help (Ansar) and those who follow them in good deeds, well pleased is Allah with them as are they with Him. For them has He prepared gardens under which rivers flows, to

dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity 130.

The above verse speaks of four qualities of those Muhajirun of Makka and

Ansar of Madina who were the first believers in Islam.

Allah has declared His pleasure with them.

They are also pleased with Allah. The Gardens of Paradise have been promised to them.

They shall live in Paradise forever.

Now it is obvious that the caliphs Abu Bakar, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali are at the top of the list of those who first embraced Islam. The above Qur’anic honour has been conferred upon all of them equally without any distinction of the Companion ‘Ali over others. Any objection or disregard for any of the first

three caliphs is as absurd and false as it is for the caliph ‘Ali.

Second Proof

The Holy Qur’an says in Surah Al-Tawba:

Those that have embraced the faith and migrated from their homes and fought for Allah’s cause with their wealth and their persons are held in higher regard by Allah. It is they who shall triumph. Their Lord has

130 Qur’an 9:100 4 promised them joy and mercy, and gardens of eternal bliss where they shall

dwell for ever. Allah’s reward is great indeed 131.

The above verse speaks of the following four rewards for those who embrace Islam, migrated for the sake of their faith and sacrificed their wealth and selves.

1. They are held in higher regard by God. 2. They shall be rewarded with success and triumph. 3. They are promised blessings and the pleasure of Allah and Paradise.

2. They shall have eternal dwelling in Paradise.

The fourth promise has been strengthened with three Qur’anic terms Muqim, Khalidin and Abadan, all three signifying the eternality of their dwelling in Paradise. It is undeniable that the first three caliphs fulfil the requirements of being staunch believer and savrificing their wealth and taking pains for their

faith, just as the companion ‘Ali did.

Third Proof

It is again stated in Surah al-Tauba:

But the Messenger and those with him fought with their goods and their persons. Those shall be rewarded with good things. Those shall surely prosper. All has prepared for them Gardens under which streams of water

flow, in which they shall abide for ever. That is the supreme felicity 132.

This verse too speaks of four rewards for the believers who fought with their wealth and with their persons. The first three caliphs are decidedly the best believers and Mujahidin. Therefore they necessarily deserve the above rewards.

Fourth Proof

Again we read in the following surah (Tawba) the following verse:

Allah has purchased of the faithful their lives and worldly goods in return for Paradise. They will fight for His cause, slay and be slain. Such is the True Pledge which He has made them in the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is more true to his Promise than Allah. Rejoice then in the bargain you have made. That is the supreme felicity. Those that repent and those that serve Allah and praise Him, those that kneel and prostrate

131 Qur’an 9:20 132 Qur’an 9:88 4 themselves, those that enjoin good, forbid evil and observe the Hudud of

Allah are the faithful who deserve good news.

The above verse similarly speaks of the promise of Paradise for the believers, and also the verse has spoken of nine other attributes of the

companions which are proved more perfectly in the four Caliphs of Islam.

Fifth Proof

The Holy Qur’an says in Surah Al-Hajj:

Those who are once given power in the land shall establish the institution of ‘Salat’ and pay the Zakat, shall enjoin good and forbid evil, and Allah

alone decides the destiny of all things133.

The phrase “given power in the land” refers to the Muhajirun (the migrants from Makka) which is obvious from the preceding part of this verse. The Ansar of Madina are not included as they did not have to migrate from their homeland. Now this verse implies that the Muhajirun, once being in possession of political power, will establish the institutions of Salat and Zakat and will propagate good and forbid evil. It is historically evident that the Muhajirun were made the rulers of the land and that they established the above institutions and founded a society free of all evils. Therefore the above Qur’anic verse is an affirmation of the truth of all the four caliphs of Islam. The last sentence of the verse, “Allah alone decides the destiny of all things,” assures that they shall certainly get the power

in the land, and that Allah’s Kingdom alone is eternal and everlasting.

Sixth Proof

Another verse of the same Surah says:

Fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to Him. He has chosen you and laid on you no constriction in the matter of faith, the faith of Ibrahim, your father. He has named you Muslims before and in this, so that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and that you, yourselves, may be witnesses for the people. Therefore establish Salat and pay the Zakat and hold fast to Allah for He is your guardian. A gracious guardian and a

gracious helper 134.

133 Qur’an 22:41 134 Qur’an 22:78 4 Seventh Proof

We find the following verse in Surah Al-Nur:

Allah has promised those of you whom believe and do good deeds to make them masters in the land, as he had made their ancestors before them, to strengthen the Faith he4 chose for them, and to exchange their fear for peace and safety, so that they should worship Me and hold no partners with

Me. Whoever denies after this, they are indeed the evil-doers.

The phrase “those of you” in the above verse indicates that the above verse refers only to those few believers who were present at the time of its revelation. It is also evident from the Qur’anic words ‘their ancestors before them’ that this promise of their rule over the land will be fulfilled some time after the death of the Holy Prophet, for the Holy Prophet is the last of all the Prophets and there is no room for anyone to be a Prophet after him, therefore the promise of rule must be for the caliphs. The use of the plural in all the expressions of promise in the above verse sufficiently proves that the subject of the above promise should not be less than three, as the Arabic plurals are not applied to any lesser number. Therefore it requires that the number of the rulers should not be less than three. The above verse also has promised that the faith would be strengthened through to them, necessitating their possession of worldly power to enable them

strengthen the faith. Similarly the Qur’anic words in the above verse are clear in implying that the faith preached by them would be the faith chosen by Allah, and that their ruling period would be a period of peace and justice. The verse affirms that they

will be true believers as long as they live. In short, the above verse is a strong argument of the sincerity of all the four caliphs in general, and of the companions Abu Bakar, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman in particular, because it was in their period that Islam conquered many countries and had the most powerful and stable rule. This was not the case in the period of the fourth caliph, ‘Ali. He remained busy all the time in eliminating local problems. The objections raised against the first three Caliphs by the Shi’ites are

therefore ungrounded and invalid.

Eighth Proof

The following has been said in Surah Al-Fath about the Muhajirun and

Ansar who were present at the treaty of Hudaybiya:

While the unbelievers nourished in their hearts the heat and cant of ignorance, Allah has sent down tranquillity on his messenger and on the 4 believers, and made them cling to the command of taqwa, for they were

most worthy and deserving of it. Allah has knowledge of all things 135.

This verse bears witness to the following four qualities of the companions of

the Holy Prophet:

1. They shared the tranquillity that Allah sent doen on His Messenger.

2. They are believers. 3. The attributes of taqwa is an inseparable part of their character.

3. They are the ones who most deserve this attributes of taqwa.

The above four qualities are proved more perfectly in the case Abu Bakar, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman. Any belief or claim contrary to this is false and against the

Qur’anic evidence.

Ninth Proof

We find the following verse in Surah Al-Fath:

Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger and those with him are hard on the unbelievers but merciful to one another. You see them low (in Salat) and they prostrate themselves seeking the grace of Allah and his pleasure. Their

marks of prostration are on their faces 136.

In this verse the companions of the Holy Prophet have been described by Allah as being firm and determined against the unbelievers in the battles, compassionate and merciful to each other, great worshippers and seekers of Allah’s grace and pleasure. Now anyone claiming to be a Muslim would be

great sinner if he believed anything contrary to this.

Tenth Proof

Allah has said in Surah Al-Hujurat:

But Allah had endeared the faith to you and beautified it in your hearts, made you detest unbelief, misdeed and disobedience. They are the ones who

are rightly guided 137.

135 Qur’an 48:26 136 Qur’an 48:29 137 Qur’an 49:7 4 The following qualities are here confirmed by the Qur’an for the

Companions:

1. Iman or Belief was very dear to the Companions. 2. They had great dislike for disbelief, misdeed and disobedience. 3. The Companions were the people of guidance and were rightly guided by

Allah. Any belief contrary to the above would therefore be absolutely wrong.

Eleventh Proof

The following description is found in Surah Al-Hashr:

A part of spoils is also due to the indigent Muhajirun, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, who seek Allah’s grace and bounty and support Allah and His Messenger, these are the true believers. But those who, before them, had homes (in Madina) and embraced the faith before them, love those who came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things they are given. And they rather prefer them above themselves though they are in want. And those saved from covetousness of

their souls are the ones that achieve prosperity 138.

The above verse has attested to the following six qualities of the Muhajirun

and the Ansar (Helpers of Madina):

1. Their migration to Madina was exclusively for seeking the pleasure of

Allah and not for worldly gains. 2. They were all supporters of the faith of Allah and His Messenger.

3. They were truthful in their speech and in their action. 4. The Ansar had great affection and love for those who came to them for

refuge. 5. The Ansar really rejoiced when their Muhajirun brethren received any

fortune 139. 6. The Ansar of Madina, in spite of being poor and in need themselves,

preferred their Muhajirun brethren over themselves.

138 Qur’an 59:8 139 The Ansar of Madina set a unique example of Islamic brotherhood and self sacrifice with the Muhajirun. They devided all their possessions in two equal parts and gave one part to Muhajieun. When the land of Banu nadhir was divided and the major portion was assigned to the Muhajirun, the Ansar of Madinan rejoiced in the good fortune of the Muhajirun without showing any trace of jealousy. (Raazi)

4 The above six distinctive features indicate the perfection of their faith. The poor Muhajirun referred to by the Holy Qur’an used to call Abu Bakr the deputy or the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah, and their truthfulness has been confirmed by Allah in this verse. This requires that they must be true in their saying that Abu Bakr was the Caliph or deputy of Allah, which in turn proves

this Caliphate to have been just and true.

Twelfth Proof

It says in Surah Ali-Imran:

You are the best nation that has ever been raised up for people. You

enjoin justice and forbid evil, and you believe in Allah 140.

The above verse testifies the following three attributes of the Companions.

1. They bare the best of all people. 2. They always preach what is good and prohibit what is wicked.

2. They are true believers in Allah.

There are many other such verses in the Holy Qur’an but I have confined myself to the above twelve examples, keeping them equal to the number of the disciples of Christ and the Imams of the Shi’ites. I would, however, like to reproduce five statements of the Shi’ite scholars testifying the status of the first

three caliphs of Islam.

1. The following statement of the Companion, ‘Ali, has been reported in

Najhul Balagha, the most authentic book of the Shi’ites:

How commendable and righteous is that ‘certain man’, because he straightened the devious, healed the severe disease, established the way of the Holy Prophet, opposed heresy, died innocent, performed the best deeds, saved himself from evil, had little deficiency, live in obedience to Allah and

was the most fearful of Allah in observing His rights.

The phrase “that certain man” in the above verse refers to the Companion, Abu Bakr, according to the most exegetes and particularly al-Bahrani. Other commentators think that the Companion, ‘Umar, is the subject of this reference. The Companion, ‘Ali, enumerated ten attributes found in Abu Bakr, according to the former opinion, and in ‘Umar according to the latter. Since this statements

140 Qur’an 3:110 4 was made after the death of the two caliphs, it removes any doubts with regard

to their rightful succession to the Islamic caliphate.

2. The great Shi’ite scholar, Mu’tamad ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa, in his book Kashf Al-

Ghumma:

Someone asked Imam Ja’far as-Sabiq about the use of ornate swords. He said that it was permissible because the Companion Abu Bakr had also used as ornate sword. The questioner demanded, ‘How can you say such a thing?’ Imam Ja’far jumped from his coach and said waith great enthusiasm, ‘Certainly he was truthful, no doubt he was truthful, certainly he was

truthful, anyone not believing him to be truthful may be refused by Allah.’

He above statement confirms that the Companion, Abu Bakr, certainly enjoyed the status of ‘Siddiq’, the Truthful. Anyone denying him this attribute is

false, here as well as in the Hereafter.

3. The commentator of Nahj-al- Balagha had reproduced some letters of the Companion, ‘Ali. The following description in favour of the Companions,

Abu Bakar and ‘Umar, is found in one of these letters:

I swear by my life that these two elders were great and of high status. Their demise is, indeed, a great loss to Islam. May Allah shower His grace upon them

and reward them for their best deeds.

4. The great Shi’ite scholar and the author of Kitab-al-Fusul has reported

Imam Baqir as saying:

The respected Imam saw some people busy disparaging the Companions Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman. He asked them, ‘Are you among the Muhajirun of Makka who left their homes and possessions purely for seeking th pleasure of Allah and his Messenger, and for supporting them? They answered, ‘No, we are not from among the Muhajirun.’ He said, ‘Then are you from those were living in Madina and had accepted Faith, and loved every Muhajir who came to them for refuge?’ They admitted that they were not also from among them. The Imam said to them, ‘You have admitted that you do not belong to either of the two groups. Now, I witness that you people do not also belong to the group of people described by Allah in the

Qur’an as follows:

Those that came after them (the companies) say: Forgive us, our Lord, and forgive our brothers who embraced the Faith before us. Do nor put in 4 our hearts any malice towards the faithful, Lord you are compassionate

and merciful 141.

It is obvious that those speaking ill of the Companions, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman are out of the above three groups whom Allah praise in the Holy

Qur’an.

5. The commentary of the Holy Qur’an which is attributed by the Shi’ites to

Imam al-‘Askari contains:

Allah sent His revelation to Adam saying, I shall send My mercy to every one having love of Muhammad and his Companions and his family, so much that, if it be divided among those created from the beginning of the world up to the last day, it would make them deserve Paradise through accepting the faith and performing good deeds. Any anyone having malice and enmity for Muhammad and his family, and his Companions will be so severely punished by Allah that if it be divided among all those created, it would be

enough to kill all of them.

This implies that the faithful are required by Allah to love both the family and the Companions of the Holy prophet and not only one of them. This also confirms that bearing malice or enmity against either of the two calls for severe punishment from Allah. May Allah save us all from such misbelief and disregard against the family of Companions of Holy Prophet, and may Allah

keep our hearts filled with love of them as long we live.

Second Objection against the Hadiths

Their second objection against the traditions is that the scholars of hadiths (Muhaddiths) were born long after the Holy Prophet. They were, therefore, not eye-witnesses of the Prophet’s mission and his miracles. They did not hear the sayings of the Holy Prophet directly from him, rather they compiled them after more than one hundred years, having heard them from an unbroken chain of reporters. Also they rejected nearly half of these reports for not being authentic. We have previously discussed how the oral tradition is accepted by all the Christians and how its acceptability is also affirmed by the present Bible. There are a great number of doctrines, believe by the Protestants, that are based on oral traditions. The number of such injunctions is said to be not less than six hundred as admitted by the Bishop Manisek. Apart from this, five chapters of the book of Proverbs were compiled through oral tradition in the period of

141 Qur’an 59:10. The above verse has appeared without translation in the text. I have include it in the parenthesis for the convenience of readers. (Raazi)

4 Hezekiah, that is two hundred and seventy years after the death of the Prophet Solomon. Similarly the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke and nineteen

chapters of the Book of Acts were written through the oral tradition. We have also discussed that things and events of special significance usually make permanent impression on people’s minds, and that the followers of the Companions had already started compiling books of traditions in their mown period through their arrangement of chapters was not according to the method adopted by the jurisprudents. Subsequently their disciples compiled the books of Traditions according to the standard arrangement of the jurisprudents. Thereafter the great Imams, al-Bukhari and Muslim, compiled their great works. They included only the hadiths that were sahih, excluding all the reports of weaker authenticity. These authors reported the Traditions, citing all the authorities right from themselves to the Holy Prophet. The Asma’ al-Rijal, that is the complete life-records of thousand of reporters of hadiths, was collected by them enabling us to know everything about each and every reporter of a hadith. Any objection against the authenticity of hadiths on this ground, therefore, is

not valid. Their contention that the Traditions were collected by the people much later through hearing them from reporters, and that about the half of such traditions were rejected by them for not being authentic, is simply not valid. They did not reject even a single hadith that was authentic. Any report supported by an unbroken chain of reporters is called mutawatir which is technically the most authentic report and makes an injunction obligatory for the Muslims. They, however, rejected only those reports that were found to have incomplete transmission. This rejection cannot be objectionable to any sensible person. We have already reproduced the following testimony of Adam Clarke earlier in this

book. He said:

It has been established that many false gospels were in vogue in the early centuries of Christianity. This profusion of untrue and false reports made Luke feel there was a necessity to compile a new gospel. The number of such false gospels is stated to have been more than seventy. Fabricius

collected existing portions of these false gospels in three volumes.

Third Objection

They also contend that most of the hadiths do not correspond to reality. We confidently claim that none of the sahih hadiths can be presented as having anything against reason and reality. As for the descriptions of miracles and realities related to the metaphysical world like Hell and Paradise, these cannot be rejected simply because they are beyong our senses. Therefore any claim of disbelief in these realities requires more convincing arguments. And if they disbelieve in them merely because such things are uncommon and rare, this 4 makes the objection invalid because if miracles become commonplace and a normal practice they are no longer miracles. The staff turning into a serpent, its swallowing up all the serpents of the magicians, then its turning back into a staff

is not a norm or a commonplace. Likewise it would be wrong to judge metaphysical realities by the standards of our physical world. Anything related to the Hereafter, however, can be denied only on the basis of clear and undeniable arguments. In the absence of

such arguments no one should deny the existence of anything in the Hereafter. It cannot be denied that some realities are unique and peculiar to certain parts of the earth, and anyone belonging to another part who hears of those things that are absolutely strange to him finds it difficult to believe in, and sometimes refuses to accept the existence of, those realities until he is incessantly informed of it by the people. Similarly some realities seem incredible in one period and become normal practice in another. Recent conquest of distance through carriages, locomotives and steamship was unimaginable for the people of the

past while it is a matter of routine in our times. We fail to understand how the Christians can justify to themselves their denial of everything that they do not understand. They reject this irrational behaviour when it comes from those they call heretics, but their own books are full of it. They treat Muslims in the same way. The heretics, who rejected the doctrines and the traditions of the Christians for being against reason, in fact showed more sense than the Christians who failed to put any sense into their

objections against the hadiths. It is of interest to quote some examples of those passages in the Bible which

were rejected and laughed at by the heretics.

1. The Book of Numbers 22:28-30 says:

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaamn 142, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass … unto this day? Was I ever

wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

Horne said on page 636 of volume 2 of his commentary that the infidels denied the truth of an ass speaking with a man. They make a mockery of this

event.

142 Balaam was invited by the Moabites to fight against Moses. On the way to Moab, his ass stopped at seeing the angel. Balaam hit her. She said this to Balaam.

4 2. I Kings, chapter 17, contains an account of how some ravens kept feeding the prophet Elijah with bread and meat. This event is considered to be a gossip by various Christians denounced as heretics. Horne, the famous

commentator, agreed with them, as we have discussed earlier in this book.

3. The book of Ezekiel 4:4-12 contains the following:

Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side

to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege. Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and

thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

The Prophet Ezekiel has been enjoined in the above verse to perform the

following three acts:

1. He should sleep on his left side for three hundred and ninety days and bear the sins of the Israelites. Then he should lie on his right side for forty

days to bear the perversion of the house of Judah. 2. He should face towards the siege of Jerusalem with his arms bound and uncovered; and until the siege is over he should not turn from one side to

another. 3. He should eat bread baked with dung of man for three hundred and ninety

days.

Some Christians, denounced as heretics, make a joke of these injunctions and deny them being revealed by God. They claim that the above injunctions are absurd and against human reason. God is far from asking his Prophet to eat 4 bread with dung for three hundred and ninety days. Was there nothing else for

him to eat? They may. However, contend that the dung of the pure is also pure. This is what apparently seems to have been believed by Paul and is understood from his

epistle to Titus 1:15 143.

Beside, the above passage is contradicted by 18:20 of the same book of

Ezekiel where it says:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon

him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This refutes the commandment given to Ezekiel of having to bear the sins of

Israel and Judah for four hundred and thirty days.

4. Also he was commanded bu God to walk naked and barefoot for three

years as described in the book of Isaiah 20:3:

And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and

barefoot three years.

Some Christians also mock and laugh at this saying that God cannot have commanded His Prophet, a perfectly sensible man, to walk naked before all men

and women for three years.

5. We find written in the book of Hosea 1:2:

Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms.

Again in 3:1 of the same book we read:

Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress

Contrary to the above the following commandment appears in Leviticus

21:13-14 with regard to the holiness of the priest:

And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of

his own people to wife.

143 “Unto the pure all things are pure”

4 Again in the Gospel of Matthew 5:28 we read the following:

Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery

with her already in his heart.

In the presence of the above commandments it seems impossible that God could commanded His Prophet to take a whore for a wife. There are many other

such inconsistent passages which can be seen in their books.

Fourth Objection

Another objection they post against the hadiths is that many hadiths are in opposition to the Qur’an. For instance, they claim that the Qur’an testifies to the fact that Muhammad did not perform any miracles while the hadiths speak of innumerable miracles performed by him. The Qur’an speaks of Muhammad as having committed sins while the hadiths claim he was perfectly innocent. Similarly the Qur’an declares that in the beginning Muhammad was ignorant and misguided (may Allah forbid) which they claim is indicated by certain

Qur’anic verse in surahs Al-Shu’ara and Al-Dhuha: that is:

Thou knewest not (before) what was the Book and the faith but we have made it (the Qur’an) a light wherewith we guide whom we will of our

servants 144.

The other verse reads as follows:

And did He not found thee wandering then guide thee 145?

The above verse, according to them, has indicated that in the beginning he was without faith and knowledge, while the hadiths speak of him as being created with Iman which is indicated by many miracles which appeared through

him. The first two aspects of this objection related to miracles and his sins will be discussed in a later section, the most proper place for them as that is the section specially reserved for the examination of all objections against the status of the

hadiths. Here we will deal with the objections derived by them from the Qur’anic

verse quoted above. Let us discuss the second verse first.

144 Qur’an 93:7 145 Qur’an 93:7 4 The word dhall (misguidance) in the second verse does not signify deviation from the path of faith in a way that indicates infidelity. This verse has a background and therefore has been interpreted differently by the exegetes. An

authentic report from the Holy Prophet goes:

Once, in my boyhood, I was separated fro my grandfather and lost my way. I was so hungry that my life was endangered, until Allah helped me

find the right path 146.

The verse is said to refer to this event. Secondly, the verse in question has been interpreted to say that Allah found the Prophet unaware of Islamic law and He gave that knowledge to him through His revelation later on. That is to say, Allah guided the Prophet through minor or major revelation 147. Baydawi and the Jalalayn say that it means that Allah found him unaware of the knowledge of injunctions, and then gave him this knowledge through His revelation. The same kind of statement is found about

the Prophet Moses in the following Qur’anic verse:

I did that when I was in error 148.

The same Arabic word dhall is used here. In Arabic this word has a variety of meanings, for instance, it is used to mean mixed with something. For

example, it is said, “The water mixed (dhall) with milk”. In view of this idiom the verse might mean that Allah found him mixed with the associators of Makka without being distinct from them, Allah made him powerful and he preached guidance. The Holy Qur’an has used this word in the

above sense in the following verse:

Once we are mixed (dhall) with earth how can we then be created anew?

Fourthly, the word dhall in the above verse may also signify that the Holy Prophet could not even think of being honoured with prophethood, and to him it seemed impossible because the Christians and the Jews had firm belief that prophethood was confined exclusively to the Children of Israel, then Allah

honoured him with it. Fifthly, he did not know or guess that he would be commanded to migrate from Makka, then Allah sent his commandment for migration which proved to

be a great event in history.

146 Al-Qurtubi, pages 97,98 vol 20, and Ibn Kathir, page 523 vol 4 (Taqi) 147 The “minor revelation” is the translation of Wahi al-Khafi, (the hadiths) while the “major revelation” is the translation of Wahi al-Jali (the Qur’an). (Raazi) 148 Qur’an 26:20 4 Sixthly, the word dhall is also often used for a tree that is found alone and isolated in a desert. In this sense the verse would mean that Arabia was a lonely and deserted place where no tree of faith, except the Holy Prophet, existed, that is to say, Allah said to him: We found you alone and isolated, then we guided the people through you. This is also confirmed by the following saying of the

Holy prophet:

A point of wisdom is the lost property of the mu’min (believer).

Another interpretation of this verse is that the Holy prophet had a keen desire that Ka’bah should be appointed as qiblah (orientation) for the Muslims. Since he had no knowledge that his desire would soon be granted by Allah, this lack of knowledge has been expressed by word dhall. Later the Holy Qur’an

informed him in these words:

We will make you turn towards a qiblah that will please you.

The word dhall has also been used to signify love and affection, as in the

following verse:

You are surely in your old illusion (dhall 149).

This would imply that the verse in question refers to the love of the Holy Prophet for Allah and says that, as a return for this love, Allah guided him to

His commandments so that he might draw closer to Allah through them. The verse has also been interpreted to say that Allah found the Holy Prophet helpless and unsupported among his people in Makka. The persecuted and did not respect him. Allah gave him power and strength through his mission and

gave him authority over them. The tenth interpretation o this verse is that he had no knowledge of the Heavens before, through his Ascension, he was guided by Allah to knowledge

of them. The word dhall is also used in the Qur’an for forgetting. The Holy Prophet was so much overawed in the presence of Allah, on the night of Ascension, that he forgot to praise Allah, the Allah Himself reminded him of the proper prayer and then he praised Allah. The following Qur’anic verse is an example of such

use of this word in the above sense:

So that if either of them forget, the other will remember 150.

149 Qur’an 12:94. This was said to the Prophet Jacob by the brothers of Joseph. Here the word dhall (illusion) has been used for Jacob’s love to Joseph. (Taqi) 150 Qur’an 2:282 4 Sheikh Junayd said that the verse has referred to the difficulty in which the Holy prophet found himself in explaining the meaning of the Qur’anic verses, then Allah taught him the proper way to explain the injunctions. The following

verse bears witness to this:

And we revealed to you the Reminder (Qur’an) so that you may make

clear to men what has been revealed to them 151.

The following verse also supports this view:

And do not move your tongue (with the revelation) so that you may hasten (to preserve) it. It is for Us to see its collection and recital. When We

read it, follow its recital. Again it is for Us to explain it 152.

The following Qur’anic verse gives the word in another sense:

Your companion is neither in error (dhall), nor is he deceived 153.

Here the word dhall is used to negate error in thought or action on the part of the Holy Prophet, saying that neither did he commit error of thought, that is

unbelief, nor of action, that is misdeed. Now as far as the second verse, speaking of the Prophet’s ignorance of the Qur’an and faith, is concerned, it simply refers to the unawareness of the Holy Prophet with regard to Qur’anic injunctions prior to their revelation. It is, no doubt, correct that the Holy Prophet always had an undefined faith in the unity of Allah, tawhid. He was unaware of the detailed injunctions with regard to tawhid and other Islamic laws until the Holy Qur’an imparted this knowledge to

him.

Fifth Objection

Another objection against the authenticity of the hadiths is that hadiths are

inconsistent with each other. We may point out that the hadiths included in the Sihah (the six collections of the sahih hadiths) are only books that are considered authentic among the Muslims. The hadiths contained in other books are believed to be inauthentic in the same way that seventy gospels current in the early centuries of Christianity

151 Qur’an 16:44 152 Qur’an 75:16-18 153 Qur’an 53:2 4 are not considered authentic thus precluding any confrontation of those gospels

with the present ones. Any apparent inconsistency ever found in sahih hadiths can usually be resolved with a little thought. Besides, it can never be as serious as are those specific examples that we have reproduced in the first part of this book. The nature of the difference or inconsistency in the sahih hadiths presented by the Christians are of the kind is present in every chapter of the Old Testament. Some of those denounced as heretics by Protestant scholars have collected many such inconsistencies with their mocking remarks. Curious readers may refer to

their books. We reproduce below some statements with regard to God and His attributes from the Old and New Testaments. These statements are enough to show that they depict God as being inferior to man, ascribing to Him many things that are simply defied by human reason. We have reproduced these examples from the

book of John Clark, 1839, and from Ecce Homo, printed in London, 1813. They are reproduced here to show that the objections raised by the Christians against the authentic hadiths are of little significance compared to the serious objections against their Holy books raised by their co-religionists called heretics. We express our complete disagreement with the views held by both parties, the Christians and the heretics, and thank our Lord for having saved us

from such absurdities.

Contradictions of the Bible as Presented by Heretics

1. Psalm 145:8-9 has:

The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of

great mercy. The Lord is good to all

This is contradicted by the following statement in I Samuel 6:19:

And he smote the men of Beth-she-mesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and

threescore and ten men.

Note how easily their Lord killed fifty thousand and seventy men simply for the fault of looking into the ark. Would He still be called gracious and

compassionate as claimed by the first statement?

2. We read the following statement in Deuteronomy 32:10:

4 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye 154.

And in the book Numbers 25:3-4 we find this statement:

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be

turned away from Israel.

See how the Lord kept them as the apple of his eye by commanding Moses

to hang all the chiefs and killing twenty-four thousand people.

3. It says in Deuteronomy 8:5:

Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his

son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee.

And in the book of Numbers 11:33 we read:

And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people … with a very great

plague.

The contradiction found between the two passage is obvious and requires no

comment.

4. The book of Micah 7:18 speaks of God in these words:

He delighteth in mercy.

On the other hand Deuteronomy 7:2 has:

And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with

them, nor show mercy unto them:

Also in verse 16 of the same chapter we find this statement:

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall

deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.

154 The Prophet Moses is speaking of God’s grace and kindness to the Israelites 4 The second statement obviously negates the first statement.

5. We find in the Epistle of James 5:11:

And have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of

tender mercy.

And the book of Hosea 13:16 says:

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and

their women with child shall be ripped up

Is there any act more inexorable and severe than killing infants and

ripping up pregnant women 155?

6. We find in the Book of Lamentations 3:33:

For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.

But his unwillingness for the grief of people is negated by the event described in I Samuel chapter 5, where he is described as having killed the people of a great city, Ashdod, through “the disease of emerods in their secret

part 156.” Similarly, according to the tenth chapter of Joshua.

the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they

whom the children of Israel slew with the sword 157.

Also we read in chapter 21 of the Book of Numbers that God sent fiery serpents among the people and a great number of the Israelites died of their

bites 158.

155 It may be noted that Islam does not allow such cruel and inflexible treatment even to enemies. The first lesson given by the Holy Prophet as Islamic strategy of war is as follows: The companion Anas has reported that the Holy Prophet used to instruct the soldiers of the Islamic army to war saying, “Go in the name of Allah, do not kill anyone of old age, nor any infant or woman. Also do not take any spoils without permission, collect your share of the spoils. Do good to others; surely Allah likes those who do good.”. 156 See I Samuel 5:9 157 Joshua 10:11-12 158 Numbers 21:6 4 7. We find the following statement in I Chronicles 16:41:

Because his mercy endureth for ever.

We read in Psalm 145:9:

The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

But His enduring mercy over His works is plainly negated by the historical event of Noah’s flood in which all human beings and animals, except those present in the Ark with Noah, were killed. Similarly the people of Sodom and

Gomorrah were destroyed by brimstone and fire, as describe in Genesis19.

8. In Deuteronomy 24:16 it says:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death

for his own sin.

This is contradicted by the event described in II Samuel, chapter 2, where the Prophet David is stated to have delivered seven men to the Gibeonites so that they may be killed for the sin committed by Saul. It becomes more serious when we know that David had made a pact with Saul that none of his family would be

killed after his death. This can be ascertained from chapter 24 of I Samuel.

9. The book of Exodus 34:7 has:

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the

children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

This is negated by Ezekiel 18:20:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of

the wicked shall be upon him.

According to the above statement, sons are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, but this is refuted in the first statement. The following statement in I Samuel 15:2-3 further says that sons will be responsible for the sins of their

fathers through generations:

4 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek 159 did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,

ox and sheep, camel and ass.

The above statement makes us understand that, after about four hundred years, God remembered what the Amalekites had done to Israel. Now he commands the Israelites to kill men and women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen and asses of the present generation of Amalekites for the sin of their forefathers. Further than this, God regretted the creation of Saul because he did not act on this commandment. The story does not end here. The Son, the second god, went even further, he commanded the sons to bear the punishment of their

fathers after four thousand years. We read in Matthew 23:35-36:

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say

unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Then the Father, the first god, takes this responsibility even further and makes all the human beings present in Christ’s time responsible for the sin committed by Adam. According to Luke there are more than seventy generations from Adam to Jesus. The father-god decided that until the original sin committed by Adam had been atoned for in some proper way, mankind would not redeemed from the fires of hell. Then he found no other way than having his son, the second god, crucified by the Jews. He could not think of a better way of redemption for the people. He did even hear the loud cry of his son at the time of his crucifixion 160. He cried for help in vain until he died.

Even after his death he went to no other place than to hell. We may point out here that it is not proved by any book of the Old Testament that Zacharias the son of Barachias was killed between the temple and the altar. However we find in II Chronicles 24:21, that Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, saw stoned to death in the court of the Temple in the reign of Joash. Then Joash’s servants killed him in his bed for Zechariah’s blood 161. The Gospel Matthew changed the name Jehoisda for Barachias and thus distorted the

159 The Amalek were a strong people. They stopped the Prophet Moses and the Israelites in their way at the time of Exodus. The Prophet Moses commanded Joshua to fight them and he defeated them. (Exodus 17:8-13) War was declared against them forever. (Exodus 17:16 and Deut. 25:17) Saul waged war against them.(I Samuel 14:48, 15:8) The Prophet David killed their chief (27:9 and 30:17). Some parts of this event have been confirmed by the Qur’an. (Taqi) 160 See Matt. 27:33-51, Luke 15:22,38,44,46, Mark 15:22-38, John 19:17-19. 161 II Chronicles 24:25 4 test. This is why Luke reported the name Zacharias without the name of his

father 162.

The above nine examples are enough to negate the statement proclaiming

God’s mercy and kindness.

10. Psalm 30:5 says:

For his anger endureth but a moment;

The Book of Numbers 32:13 contains this statement:

And the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had

done evil in the sight of the Lord, was consumed.

The contradiction in the above two statements is obvious.

11. Genesis 17:1 says:

I am the Almighty God;

While in Judges 1:19 we read this statement:

162 It was Zechariah the son of Jehoiada who was killed, not Zacharias the son of Barachias as reported by Matthew. The exegetes of the Bible are highly embarrassed at this place and have presented strange and implausible explanations for it. R.A. Knox, for instance, said that the person was killed in the house of the Lord was Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. He thinks that Barachias must have been one of the forefathers of Jehoiada to whom Zechariah has been attributed, because at two other places Zechariah is mentioned as being the son of Barachias (See Isaiah 8:2 and Zachariah 1:1). Later after more investigations another similar event was traced in history that one Zechariah the son of Baruch was also unfairly killed. This incident belongs to the period much before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD as decided by historian Josephus. It may, therefore, be an addition from some enthusiastic copier of the gospel of Matthew. He might have added the name Barachias here, presuming that Christ would have known the event was to happen in the future, in 86 AD. Both the above explanation by Knox are so obviously far removed and unfounded that they require no serious refutation. The second explanation is even more ridiculous as the event reported by Matthew is related to the past and not the future. His claim that Barachias would have been a remote forefather of Jehoiada is again a claim unsupported by argument. And his reference to Isaiah 8:2 and Zechariah 1:1 are wrong because the man described there is a totally different person. The English translation of the Bible, Knox version, has a marginal note at this place admitting that Isaiah 8:2 and Zechariah 1:1 are not relevant references. (Taqi)

4 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because

they had chariots of iron.

God, who is not powerful enough to drive out people simply because they

had chariots of iron, cannot claim to be Almighty.

12. The Book of Deuteronomy 10:17 says:

For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God,

a mighty, and a terrible,

The above is contradicted by Amos 2:13:

Behold, I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of

sheaves 163.

The Persian translation also has the same statement. Is it not strange that the God of gods, the Mighty and Great so helplessly remains pressed under the

Israelites?

13. Isaiah 40:28 says:

That the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the

earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?

Contrary to this we read in Judges 5:23:

Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the

help of the Lord against the mighty

See how the “everlasting God the Lord, the Creator” is cursing those who

did not come to help him against mighty people.

Also we read in Malachi 3:9:

Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole

nation.

163 I have reproduced this verse from the King James Version. The present English translation, Good News edition has the following totally different statement “And now I will crush you to ground and you will groan like a cart loaded with corn.” (Raazi)

4 This verse also makes us understand that God was so weak and helpless as to

be robbed by the Israelites 164.

14. The Book of Proverbs 15:3 says:

The eyes of the Lord are in every place.

Genesis 3:9 speaks differently about God:

And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art

thou?

The all-seeing God was not able to see Adam who had hidden himself

behind a tree.

15. II Chronicles 16:9 says:

For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth.

Again Genesis 11:5 negates the above:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the

children of men builded.

He had to come down to see the city and the tower, and was unable to see

them from where he was (may God forbid).

16. Psalm 139:2 says:

Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest

my thought afar off.

Let us understand that God knows every thing and every act of His creation,

but in the book of Genesis 18:20-21 we come to this statement:

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see

164 The Christian contention that the word ‘robbed’, or other similar expressions in the afore- mentioned verses, has been used metaphorically to express God’s dislike of their acts is of no avail as it would demand arguments from them to prove their use in metaphorical sense. Besides, it would imply that God was not able to express Himself in proper words so as to remove any possible confusion. At least He could avoid to choose words that were so serious in contrast with His divine powers. (Raazi)

4 whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is

come unto me; and if not, I will know.

God again was unable to know if the cry of the people of Sodom and

Gomorrah was real or not. He had to come down to know the fact.

17. Psalm 139:6 says:

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain

unto it.

God has again been reported to have such limited knowledge as not to know

what to do to the Israelites until they put off their dress.

Again the book of Exodus 16:4 says:

Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day,

that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

And it says in Deuteronomy 8:2:

And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his

commandments, or no.

The implication of this statement does not require much thought. God cannot

be dependent on anything for knowing the minds of His creation.

The Book of Malachi 3:6 contains:

For I am the LORD, I change not;

Numbers 22:20-23 tells a different story:

And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And

God’s anger was kindled because he went:

It is very strange that God first commended Balaam to go with the Moabites,

then His anger kindled against him simply beciuase he went with them.

4 The following text appears in the Epistle of James 1:17:

Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of

turning.

We already know that God gave his commandment for the observation of the Sabbath forever 165, but the Christians have changed it to Sunday. Therefore

they must admit the change in God’s commandment.

Genesis 1:21 speaks of the creation of the heaven and stars and says:

God saw that it was good.

While in the book of Job 15:15 we read:

Yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

And the book of Leviticus, chapter 11 speaks of many animals as being

unclean and prohibited.

The book of Ezekiel 18:25:

Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? Are not your ways

unequal?

The book of Malachi 1:2 says:

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste

for the dragons of the wilderness.

Here God is reported as hating Esau and destroying his heritage with none of

his fault. This negate the former verse speaking of his being equal.

The book of Revelation 15:3 says:

Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;

165 See for details: Exodus 31:13, Numbers 15:36, Genesis 2:3, Leviticus 19:3, 23:3, Deut. 5:12- 15, Jer. 17, Isaiah 56, Nehemiah 9, Ezekial 20 4 But we find this statement in Ezekiel 20:25:

Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and

judgments whereby they should not live;

Psalm 119:68 has:

Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.

And Judges 9:23 has:

Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

God sent the evil spirit to create dissension between the two peoples.

There are many that clearly speak of the prohibition of adultery 166. If we believe the statements made by many priests, it would require that God Himself committed adultery (God forbid) with the wife of Joseph the carpenter whereby she conceived a child. The heretics make highly aggressive, shameful and derogatory remarks against God at this point. The

very thought of this makes a sensible man shudder. Just for example I confine myself to one statement from Ecce Homo.

This heretic said in his book, printed 1813, on page 44:

The Gospel named “Nativity of Mary’, now considered as one of the false gospels, has reported that Mary was dedicated to serve the House of the Lord. She remained there for sixteen years. Father Jerome, believing this statement, has explained that perhaps Mary conceived the child through some priest, and he might have taught Mary to attribute it to the Holy Ghost

Further he said:

There ate many absurd traditions in vogue among the idolaters. For example, they believe that Minerva 167 was their Lord, Minerva was

166 See Exodus 20:14, Deut. 5:18, Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:10 etc. 167 The Romans believed Minerva to be their goddess in the period before Christ. Up to 207 BC there was temple in her name in Rome, and they used to celebrate her day on the 19th March every year (Britannica vol 15, pages 533) Jupiter, the great God of the Romans according to their belief, was God of rains etc. Some old temples erected in its name still present in Rome. The most pious man among them was believed to be the vicegerent of Jupiter. The people used to celebrate the day of Jupiter on 13th Sept every year. (Britannica vol 13. pages 187 and 188)

4 born of Jupiter’s mind. Bacchus was in Jupiter’s thigh and Fo of the

Chinese was conceived through the rays of the Sun.

Another similar statement, relevant to this place, has been reproduced by

John Milner in his book of 1836:

Joanna Southcott claimed to have received inspiration form God and

declared that she was the woman of whom God said in Genesis 3:15:

It shall bruise thy head

And that Revelations 12:1-2 says the following about her:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and

pained to be delivered.

We never hear whether she delivered that child or not, and if she did, was he divine like Jesus or not. In case he was God, did he change the trinity into four

gods, and was the father god the Grandfather?

Numbers 23:19 says:

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he

should repent:

But we read in Genesis 6:6-7:

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have

made them.

The book of I Samuel 15:29:

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a

man that he should repent.

And verse 10 and 11 of the same chapter contain:

4 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel;

and he cried unto the Lord all night.

The Book of Proverbs 12:22 has:

Lying lips are abomination to the Lord.

But Exodus 3:17-18 says:

And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we

may sacrifice to the Lord our God.

Also in 5:3 of the same book we read:

And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the

Lord our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.

And in 11:2 of the same book God has been reported to have addressed

Moses in these words:

Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver and jewels

of gold.

Again in Exodus 12:35 we read:

And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and

raiment:

It is strange that God, who is reported to hate falsehood, has Himself commanded his Prophets, Moses and Aaron, to lie before Pharaoh. Similarly every an and woman treacherously borrowed jewels from their neighbours by the commandments of their Prophet. There are many verse of the Pentateuch 4 insisting on respect for the rights of one’s neighbours. Do Christians believe

God teaches them fraud and deception? And also we read in I Samuel 16:1-4, God speaking with Samuel:

Fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord …

And Samuel did that which the Lord spake, and came to Bethlehem.

Obviously God commanded Samuel to lie, as he was sent to find a king and

not to sacrifice to the Lord.

Jeremiah 9:24 says:

I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and

righteousness

Though these qualities have already been negated by the above statements of

the Bible, let us, however, have a view of his judgment. Ezekiel 21:3-4 says:

And say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked. Seeing then that I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth

out of his sheath against all flesh from the south to the north.

The killing of the righteous connot be justified by any sensible soul.

Jeremiah 13:13-14 has this statement of God:

Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David’s throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness. And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, … nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy

them.

Is this the divine claimed by the former statement? This act of filling the people with drunkenness and then killing all the inhabitants of the kand without

showing mercy is a rare kind of justice shown by God.

The book of Exodus 12:29 has this statement:

4 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the

firstborn of cattle.

This presents another example of God injustice that he killed thousands of

the innocent infants.

Ezekiel 18:23 says:

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord

God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Also 33:11 of the same book has said:

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the

death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:

Both the above verses are clear in saying that Allah does not like the death of the wicked but that they should repent and live a good life for their salvation.

However, we find the following statement in Joshua 11:20:

It was of the God who harden their hearts … that He might destroy

them utterly 168,

I Timothy 2:4 has :

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge

of the truth.

But in II Thessalonians 2:11-12 we read as follows:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the

truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The book of Proverbs 21:18 contains:

168 This is the translation of Izharul Haqq. The verse according to the King James version is this: “For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, he might destroy them utterly.” (Taqi)

4 The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor

for the upright.

But the First Epistle of John 2:2 has the following statement:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also

for the sins of the whole world.

The former verse makes us understand that wicked people shall be the ransom of the righteous, while he latter verse speaks of Christ having become

the ransom for the sins of the whole world. Some Christian priests say that the Muslims do not have any atonement for their sins. This is wrong for many reasons. Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the whole world. The Muslims, who believe in the pure unity of Allah, and believe in the prophethood of Jesus and in the truth and chastity of his mother, Mary, should more reasonably deserve redemption of their sins. In actual fact, they are the only people on earth who are true believers in Allah and his

Prophets.

The book of Exodus 20:13-14 has:

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

But in the book of Zechariah 14:2 we read this statement:

I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall

be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished;

Thus God is reported as gathering all nations to get his own people killed

and get their women ravished. The former verse speaks just contrary to it.

Habakkuk 1:13 has:

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on

iniquity

Whereas Isaiah 45:7 has:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I

the Lord do all these things.

Psalm 34:15-18 says:

4 The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry … The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a

broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

But Psalm 22:1-2 speaks as follows:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not

silent.

The Gospel of Matthew 27:46 has:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou

forsaken me?

We may be allowed to ask if the Prophet David and the Christ were not among the righteous, broken-hearted and contrite? Why had God forsaken them

and why did he not hear their cry?

The Book of Jeremiah 29:13 has this statement::

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with

all your heart.

And we find the following contradiction statement in Job 23:3:

Oh, that I know where I might find him! I might come even to his

seat!

It is strange that God should witness to the righteousness, perfection and piety of Job 169, and yet in spite of this, he has no knowledge even of the way

to God, let alone the knowledge of God Himself.

The Book of Exodus 20:4 has:

169 “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” (Job 1:1)

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is

in the water under the earth.

And 25:18 of the same book has:

And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou

make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat 170.

The Epistle of Jude verse 6 says:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the

judgment of the great day.

From this we understand that the angles of evil have been bound in chains until the Day of Judgment. Contrary to this, chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Job inform us that Satan is not bound but he is free and is often seen in the presence

of God.

The second Epistle of Peter 2:4 has:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto

judgment;

And the Gospel of Matthew chapter 4 reports that satan once put Jesus to

test.

The book of Psalm 90:4 has this statement:

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,

and as a watch in the night.

And we find this statement in II Peter 3:8:

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as

one day

170 This verse is peaking of the method of construction of the Ark of Moses, saying that two images should be made of gold at both its ends. The contradiction between the two verses is obvious. (Taqi)

4 The book of Exodus 33:20 reports God saying to Moses:

Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Contrary to it, in Genesis 32:30 Jacob has been reported to say:

I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Jacob survived even after he saw God face to face. The event from which this sentence has been quoted, contains many incredible statements like Jacob’s wrestling with God which lasted for the whole night, none of the two could defeat the other, God could not release himself from Jacob’s hand, rather he requested Jacob to release him. Jacob release God in return of blessings from him. God asked Jacob his name, which ascribes ignorance of God concerning

his name 171.

The first Epistle of John 4:12 has:

No man hath seen God at any time.

But we read a different story in Exodus 24:9-11:

Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of

Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

The Prophet Moses and Aaron and the seventy elders of the Israelites not only saw God with their eyes but also had a feast with him. The above statement makes the Christian God similar to the gods of the idolaters of India, like

Krishna and Ramchander as they too are reported to be of sky colour.

I Timothy 6:16 has:

Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.

But in chapter 4 of Revelations, we read John describing his own experience of seeing God sitting on the throne and that he looked like a jasper and sardine

stone.

171 This whole event has been discussed earlier in this book. (Taqi)

4 The Gospel of John 5:37 reports Jesus as saying to the Jews:

Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

We have already seen the statement claiming that God was seen by many people. The following statement of Deuteronomy 5:24 speaks of his voice being

heard by many people:

the Lord our God hath showed us his glory and his greatness, and we

have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire:

The Gospel of John 4:24 has this sentence:

God is a Spirit:

Also we read in Luke 24:39:

A spirit hath not flesh and bones

The above two statement conclude that God has no flesh and bones. Contrary to it, the Christian texts speak frequently of all the limb of God from head to foot. They have tried to prove them through examples. We have discussed this earlier in the book. Still they find themselves unable to decide what in fact their God is. Is he a gardener, a mason, potter, a tailor, a surgeon, a barber or even a butcher or a midwife or a farmer, as they find him mentioned

differently in their books?

Genesis 2:8 says:

The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden.

Isaiah 41:19 also has a similar statement. I Samuel 2:35 has:

And I will build him a sure house;

Isaiah 64:8 has:

O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter;

Genesis 3:21 attributes tailoring to Him:

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of

skins, and clothed them.

4 Jeremiah 30:17 says:

I will heal thee of thy wounds.

Isaiah 7:20 has this statement:

In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of

the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.

Genesis 29:31 and 30:23 speak of God as being a midwife or a nurse. Isaiah

34:6 has:

The sword of the Lord is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of

rams:

Chapter 41:15 of the same book says:

I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills

as chaff.

The Book of Joel 3:8 speaks of him as a trader:

And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the

children of Judah.

Isaiah 54:13 describes him as a teacher:

And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord.

And chapter 3 of Genesis depicts him as a wrestler.

II Samuel 22:9 describes God in the following words:

There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth

devoured: coals were kindled by it.

But Job 37:10 speaks of him as follows:

By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is

straitened.

4 Hosea 5:12 has:

Therefore will I be unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah

as rottenness.

But 13:7 of the same book has this statement:

Therefore I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I

observe them:

Lamentations 3:10 has:

He was unto me as a bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret places.

While Isaiah 40:11 has this description:

He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:

Exodus 15:3 says of God:

The Lord is a man of war.

The Epistle to the Hebrews 13:20 says:

The God of peace,

I John 4:8 has:

God is love.

But Jeremiah 21:5 has a different view:

I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a

strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath.

We have cited forty-nine differences above 172.

172 We may once again point out that many of the above differences reproduced by the heretics are wrong, unfounded and even absurd. The author has reproduced them here only to demonstrate the fact that the objections raise by the Christians against the hadiths are equally weak and absurd as those raised by the heretics against the Bible. It is strange that the Church authorities reject these objections as being absurd and wrong, but do not hesitate to put forward the same objections against the hadiths.

4 Anyone wanting more of such difference can find them in Christian books in

abundance.

Polygamy, Slavery and Eunuchs in the Bible 173

The book of Deuteronomy 21:15 has:

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated.

As for slavery we find the following statement in Joshua 9:27:

And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in

the place which he should choose.

The book of Isaiah 56:4-5 says:

For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting

name, that shall not be cut off.

These verses are explicit in permitting polygamy and slavery and show God is pleased with the eunuchs, while these things are considered wrong by the

Christians. I Corinthian 1:25 has said:

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness

of God is stronger than men.

The book of Ezekiel 14:9 speaks of God in these words:

If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord

have deceived that Prophet.

173 The Christians have been quite enthusiastic in raising objections against Islam for polygamy, slavery and for the presence of eunuchs in Islam. Our author has refuted this objection by showing that the Bible also allows the same. (Raazi)

4 The above two verses are obvious in attributing foolishness, weakness and deception to God. John Clark, after citing this and many other similar

statements, remarked:

The God of the Israelites is not only a murder, a tyrant, a liar and a fool

but also a burning fire. It has been admitted by Paul in Hebrews 12:29:

For our God is a consuming fire.

Being under the power of such a God is really dangerous as Paul himself

said in Hebrews 10:31:

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Therefore, the sooner one gets freedom from such a God the better. When the life of His only and beloved son is not safe in His hands, who can expect mercy and kindness from Him. The God depicted by these books cannot be a reliable and trustworthy God; rather He is the product of the whims. He has

nothing to do with reality. He is even reported to misguide his own Prophets.

The defective concept of God presented by these books is responsible for

this kind of opposition by the heretics 174.

174 The present opposition and antagonism of the west towards religion has been, in fact, caused only by irrational demands, both in the field of thought and actions. (Raazi)