[First Paper]

PROCEEDINGS

22 MAY 1893

On Monday 22 May 1893, the debate session took place in the residence of Dr. Henry Martyn Clark.

The program commenced at 6:15. Mr. Munshi Ghulam Qadir Fasih, Vice President, Municipal Committee Sialkot, was agreed upon as President on behalf of the Muslims and Dr. Henry Martyn Clark on behalf of the Christians.

Hakim Maulawi Nur-ud-Din, Sayyed Muhammad Ahsan, and Sheikh Allah-Diya were settled upon to assist Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib, and Reverend G. L. Thakur Dass, Reverend Abdullah, and Reverend Thomas Howell were settled upon to assist Deputy Abdullah Atham. As Reverend G. L. Thakur Dass had not come today, Reverend Ehsanullah was assigned in his stead to be an assistant for the day.

Mirza Sahib began documenting his question at 6:15 and finished at 7:15. And this was read aloud before the audience. Then Deputy Abdullah Atham spent only five minutes presenting his rebuttal. Mirza Sahib then dictated his rejoinder, but the objection was raised that the question Mirza Sahib had presented for writing was not in accord with the procedural rules; that is to say, the first question should be regarding the Divinity of the Messiah. On this, the procedural rules were given attention. The original procedural rules in English were then compared with the translation, and an error was discovered in the translation which was in the possession of Mirza Sahib. It was agreed, therefore, that the question should commence with the Divinity of the Messiah, and whatever had been previously documented would be presented on its proper occasion.

At 8:26 Mirza Sahib started dictating his question about the Divinity of the Messiah. He finished at 9:15, and it was read out loud. Mr. Abdullah Atham started dictating his answer at 9:30, but his answer was not complete when his allotted time came to an end. Upon this Mirza Sahib and the President of the Islamic community permitted the aforementioned gentleman [Abdullah Atham] to complete his reply. This was done in five extra minutes. After this, the Presidents of both parties signed the respective papers, and the attested documents were given to one another and the meeting was adjourned.

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD OF QADIAN

1
2

After this, let it be known that today, which is the 22 May 1893, is the day agreed upon for this disputation and debate between Deputy Abdullah Atham and me. And through this debate, the intent and aim is to impart upon seekers after truth which religion—between Islam and the Christian faith—is true, living, perfect, and from Allah, and also which religion is the means through which true salvation can be attained. I consider it appropriate, therefore, that first, by way of a comprehensive statement, the Holy Bible and the Noble Quran should be compared and contrasted regarding this very matter which is the ultimate reason for this debate. However, within this comparison and contrast, it should be kept in mind that no party shall have any right whatsoever to go outside of his Book or express anything by way of his own opinion. On the contrary, it shall be mandatory and binding that whatever claim is asserted, that claim is referenced from that revealed Book which is deemed to have been revealed. And whatever argument they present, that argument should also be referenced from that very Book, for it is absolutely true and far beneath the dignity of a Perfect Book that its advocacy be carried out by someone else employing all his training and preparation whilst that book remains totally silent and mute.

Now, let it be clear that the Noble Quran states the following in regard to Islam—which it puts forth:

—(Part 3, Ruku‘ 10)3

—(Part 3, Ruku‘ 17)4

Translation: meaning that Islam is the true and perfect religion in the judgement of Allah Almighty, and whoso desires any other religion apart from Islam, it shall never be accepted and he shall be among the losers in the Hereafter. Then it states:

—(Part 6, Ruku‘ 5)5

Meaning that today I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and I have chosen Islam for you.

—(Part 26, Ruku‘ 12)6

That God, who has sent His Messenger with guidance and with the Religion of truth so that He may make this religion prevail over all faiths. [And sufficient is Allah as a Witness.]

Then Allah, the Lord of Glory, putting forth several verses in praise of the Noble Quran—which presents the religion of Islam—says that since the praise of the Noble Quran is essentially praise for the religion of Islam, so those verses are also documented herein:

—(Part 15, Ruku‘ 10)7

‘And surely, We have set forth for mankind in various ways all kinds of similitudes in this Quran, but most men would reject everything but disbelief.’

Meaning that We perfected the Quran in every way with evidence and arguments, but still people did not refrain from denial.

—(Part 11, Ruku‘ 9)8

—(Part 25, Ruku‘ 3)9

Meaning that God is He who has sent down the Book—that is, the Holy Quran—with truth and also the Balance. In other words, it is such a Book that serves as a scale to judge between truth and falsehood.

—(Part 13, Ruku‘ 8)10

Translation: He sent down water from the sky so that every valley began to flow, each according to its measure.

—(Part 15, Ruku‘ 1)11

This Quran guides to that teaching which is most straightforward and most perfect.

12

Say, ‘If all men and Jinn were to unite together to be able to produce another book which could compete with Quranic excellences, they would not be able to produce it even though they help one another.’

Then, at another place He states:

—(Part 7, Ruku‘ 10)13

Meaning that nothing has been left out of the Quran from among the necessary teachings, and the Quran is a Complete Book, which does away with the need to wait for any other [Complete Book].

—(Part 30, Ruku‘ 11)14

—(Part 27, Ruku‘ 8)15

The Quran is a decisive word which gives the true decision in every matter. And it is Consummate wisdom.

—(Part 27, Ruku‘ 16)16

17

Meaning that I swear by the places of rising of the stars and their spectacles—and this oath is a grand oath, if you only knew the truth!—that this Quran is an esteemed and eminent Book and only those people who possess pure dispositions can touch it.

The relevance of this oath in this particular situation is that the Quran has been praised as noble—meaning that it encompasses spiritual excellences—and on account of extremely exalted and lofty subtleties and verities, it appears to be small in the view of some shortsighted people for the very same reason that the stars appear to be small and like dots, while it is not the case that they are like dots in reality. On the contrary, because their station is extremely lofty and high, it is for this reason that the eyes which lack the requisite ability are unable to perceive their true magnitude.

—(Part 25, Ruku‘ 14)18

[Meaning that] We have caused the Quran to descend in such a blessed Night, in which every single matter has been mentioned and explained in detail with full wisdom.

By this it is understood that just as a night had appeared with overwhelming darkness, so correspondingly, this Book has been adorned with brilliant lights that dispel the darkness of every kind of doubt and ambiguity, pronouncing judgement on every issue and teaching every type of wisdom.

19

[Meaning that] Allah is the friend of those who believe and He brings them out of darkness into light.

—(Part 29, Ruku‘ 5)20

—(Part 27, Ruku‘ 16)21

—(Part 30, Ruku‘ 6)22

Meaning that the Quran reminds the righteous of all those matters that lay hidden and concealed within their nature. And this is the pure truth that leads man to certainty. And it [the Quran] is not ungenerous in bestowing knowledge of the unseen; that is to say, its function is not to act like misers, simply conveying news of the unseen itself yet incapable of bestowing the power of knowing the unseen upon another. Rather, it is itself comprised of the knowledge of the unseen, and the one who follows it is also bestowed the bounties of the knowledge of the unseen.

This is the Quran’s claim about its teachings which it asserts itself, and then—going forward—it will itself provide its proof also. However, since the time now remaining is short, that proof shall be documented in the reply to the response.

At present, I request Deputy Abdullah Atham to similarly present the claims of the Holy Bible in this very manner and this very majesty, adhering to the rules previously documented by me, for every equitable one knows that it can never be that, [as the adage goes:] [While the witness shows great enthusiasm, the plaintiff remains silent]. This must be especially so in the case of Allah, the Lord of Glory, who is Mighty and Omnipotent and possesses the most extensive knowledge of the highest possible degree. Whichever Book we ascribe to Him, that Book should sustain itself on its own. It should be pure and free of all human weaknesses; for, if it needs the support of someone else for its claim or is found wanting in providing the proofs of its claims, then it can never be the Word of God.

Again, it should be kept in mind that our only purpose at this moment is that when the Noble Quran has made the claim of comprehensiveness and completeness for its teachings, this very claim must also be asserted by that part of the Gospel which is ascribed to the Messiah, peace be upon him. Or, at the very least, it should be that the Messiah(as) declares his teaching to be final and complete and not leave us waiting upon some occasion in the future.

Note

This question had been written to this point when the other party insisted that Question Number Two be addressed at some other occasion. At present, the question should be raised concerning the Divinity of the Messiah, and so because of their insistence, this question, which was not yet final and complete, was left at this same stage and the remaining part of it shall be published later.

22 MAY 1893

Question on the

DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH

23
24

After this let it be known that according to the regulations settled upon in a separate document dated 24 April 1893, we had suggested that the first question we would ask Mr. Abdullah Atham would be regarding the Divinity of the Messiah, peace be upon him. Therefore, in compliance with this very condition, the question is written below. Let it be known that in this debate, it will be highly essential, that whatever question may be asked from our side, or whatever may be an answer from the side of Deputy Abdullah Atham—none of it should be from one’s self. Rather, it should be: (1) referenced from one’s own Revealed Book which the other party accepts as a proof; similarly, (2) every single argument, and (3) every single claim that is presented should be done abiding assiduously with this. In short, no party should go outside the contents of that Book of his, the citation of which can serve as an argument against him.

After this, let it be known that these verses are found in the Noble Quran regarding the Divinity of the Messiah, peace be upon him, rejecting the views of those gentlemen who hold the belief regarding the aforementioned holy one that he is God or the Son of God:

25

Meaning that essentially the Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than just a Messenger and before him too, indeed, only Messengers have been coming.

And the statement that before him too, indeed, only Messengers have been coming is an extremely fine argument by way of inductive reasoning (4) because, of all the forms of reasoning, inductive reasoning occupies the lofty station that if its conclusive and decisive status were to be disregarded or ignored, the entire spiritual and worldly design would collapse. If we diligently observe, we will discover that the evidence of a large part of the world and of the events in times past, occurred through the means of this very inductive method. For example, we currently say that man eats with his mouth, sees with his eyes, hears with his ears, smells with his nose, and speaks with his tongue. If someone presents some holy book in which it is written that these occurrences did not happen in the past; rather, in earlier ages, man used to eat with his eyes and speak through his ears, and that he used to see through the nose and similarly change other things. Or, for example, it should be said that in some bygone age man did not possess two eyes but rather had twenty, ten of which were on the front of his face and ten on the back.

So now the audience can ponder that even if we accept for the sake of argument that the one who penned these strange lines was some holy and righteous man, yet how can we move away from this categorical conclusion that has originated through inductive reasoning? In my opinion, not only one, but even if one million more such holy men were to try to sever the categorical and decisive conclusions deduced by inductive reasoning, they would not be able to break them. But if we are just, and love for the truth is our habit, and if we truly consider this person to be a revered person, and yet we find in his writings such words as are contrary to observed and experienced truths, then for the sake of his reverence, we would ignore the apparent meaning of his words and try and find an interpretation, by resorting to which, the honour of the revered personage may remain intact.

It would, however, never be the case that those truths that have been proven to be certain and decisive through inductive reasoning could be averted based upon a single narration. If someone thinks on these lines, then the burden of proof lies upon him to provide some facts supporting and verifying such a narration that goes against the present, decisive and conclusive inductive proofs.

For example, the person who debates and argues and disputes saying that Sir! Certainly, in previous ages people used to see with the tongue and used to talk with the nose, such a one should present proof of this. And till such time that such proof is not presented, it is very far indeed from the dignity of a civilized, intelligent man that, relying on such writings which—even if they are taken to have been accurately conveyed—could have scores of interpretations, he should adopt those meanings which are opposed and repugnant to proven truths.

If, for example, it is stated to a doctor that arsenic and the poison that is prepared from bitter almonds, etc. are not poisonous, and that even if many pounds in weight of these are given to children to eat, no harm will come to them and—by way of proof—he is told that this is what is written in such and such holy book and that the narrators from whom this material has reached us are reliable; would that doctor—out of regard for that holy book—abandon such a fact that has been proven by inductive reasoning?

In short, since inductive reasoning occupies the status of the highest order in establishing truth in the world, Allah, the Lord of Glory, has mentioned inductive reasoning at the very start, stating:

26

Meaning that the Messiah, peace be upon him, was undoubtedly a Prophet and a beloved Messenger of Allah, the Lord of Glory, but he was a human being. Open your eyes and see that always and eternally, ever since this system of conveying the Message [of Allah] and revealing the Divine Word began, only human beings have been coming into the world upon being bestowed the status of Messenger [of Allah]. Or has it ever been the case that a son of Allah, the Exalted, also came?

And the word [khalatt—‘passed away’] draws attention towards this, that acquiring knowledge about the state of affairs of the people of the past by looking as far back as possible into the historic record, one should ponder well and try to understand whether this system has ever broken; can one present any such occurrence by which it may be proven that this phenomenon is even within the realm of possibilities; that before also, every now and then, this indeed used to happen.

So a wise man should pause here for a moment and—being fearful of Allah, the Lord of Glory—reflect within his heart that the system of events and occurrences demands its precedent be found sometime in some era.

Sure, if we ascribe a literal interpretation to all those Prophets and virtuous ones of the Bible regarding whom the Bible also contains words saying that they were the sons of God Almighty or that they were gods, then we would undoubtedly be forced to admit in such circumstances that it is the practice of God Almighty that He sends His sons as well; nay rather, sons aside, sometimes even daughters. And prima facie this appears to be an excellent argument should the honourable Christian gentlemen be pleased to assert it, and no one could even refute it since there is no mention there whatsoever of being real or metaphoric [sons]; rather, some are even referred to as the firstborn.

Yes, of course, in this scenario, the total number of sons would increase significantly.

In short, Allah, the Lord of Glory, has first of all, indeed presented an inductive argument for the refutation of Divinity [of the Messiah]. Then, after this, God Almighty presents another argument: 27 Meaning that the mother of the Messiah(as) was a truthful woman. It is, of course, obvious that if the Messiah(as) is assumed to be the literal son of Allah, the Lord of Glory, then it necessarily follows that for his birth he should not—like other people—depend upon such a mother (5) who, as is agreed by both parties, was a human being, since it is patently obvious and widely known that the law of nature of Allah, the Lord of Glory, is so constituted that the offspring of every living being is of the same species (6) as itself. For example, look at all the different types of animals, like humans and horses and donkeys, and every type of bird. They all come into being, each according to its kind. It does not happen that a human is born from a bird or a bird comes from the womb of a human.

Then, this is presented as a third argument: 28 Meaning that both of them, the Messiah(as) and his ever-truthful mother, used to eat food. Now, you can all understand why a human being eats food and why he is in need of eating food. The real secret in this is that there is a process of dissolution (7) constantly transpiring within the body of a human being, so much so, that, as proven by ancient and modern research, in a matter of a few years, upon dissolution, the earlier body disappears and another body comes into being to take its place.

And every type of food that is eaten also affects the soul, because this is also an established truth that sometimes the soul affects the body and sometimes the body puts its impress upon the soul. For example, if the soul of a person suddenly experiences some joy, then the signs of this happiness—that is to say, cheerfulness and vivacity—make their appearance on the face of the person. And sometimes the effects of the body, as in smiling or crying, make their impress upon the soul.

Now, this being the case, how far from the status of Godhead is this that the body of Allah, Himself, too, should always be in a state of decay and be replaced with another in a matter of every three or four years?

Quite apart from all this, the very need to eat is contrary to the meaning manifestly attached to the very being of God Almighty. Now, it is clear that the Messiah(as) was not free of the needs that are attached to all human beings.

So again, this is an excellent argument, that despite these pains and sufferings, he was nevertheless God or the Son of God, and we have used the word pain because hunger is also a sort of pain, and if it becomes excessive, it can lead even to death.

Reply From

MR. ABDULLAH ATHAM, CHRISTIAN

If this statement of Your Honour is correct that the reality of every matter depends only upon experience—that is to say, that which goes against experience is false—then we would indeed have to deny the attribute of creation because we have experienced the creation of nothing. And we will also have to deny the creation of Adam without parents, and we do not know why we should do this, because absolutely impossible we say of that thing which goes against some attribute of God, and these things that are outside the realm of our experience, like, for example, the creation of things—that is to say, the coming into being from nothing, without any materials, and the coming into being of Adam in a manner that is opposed to the manner of giving birth now—we do not find to be opposed to any holy attribute of God Almighty.

Second—In reply to your second premise, you should know that we do not believe a visible thing—which needs eating and drinking, etc.—to be Allah, but rather consider such to be simply a manifestation of Allah. This is the same kind of premise set forth in the Quran regarding that fire visible in the bush. It is written that, O Moses, take off thy shoes because this is the sacred valley of Tuwa and that I am the God of your father Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Moses accepted this statement. Now do tell, a thing visible can, in no way, be God and yet the vision was seen; hence, we call it a manifestation of Allah; not Allah. In like manner, we do not call Christ, the creature, Allah, but rather a manifestation of Allah. If God was to call out, from the pillar in front of us, which is made of mud and bricks, and wish to say that, ‘I am your Lord, heed such and such statement of Mine,’ so, although this matter is against experience, is it outside the realm of possibility that God cannot do this? (In our opinion it is not outside the realm of possibility).

Third—We have not believed the son of Allah as having a body. We believe Allah to be a spirit, not a body.

Fourth—Regarding any matter, our request is this, that a matter needing interpretation should, no doubt, be interpreted, but reality should not corrupt the interpretation. If some reality is contrary to a matter that took place, then it should be at once declared false rather than distorting a falsity to make it true.

Fifth—Regarding the Immortal Being, let it be known by Your Honour that the word ‘son’ and ‘firstborn’ are used in two ways in the Bible. The first way is that he is [yak-tann], with God. The second is that he is [yak-mann], one in spirit enjoying His pleasure. (The yak-tann form is that which is one in essence, and the yak-mann form is when he is not associated in essence but enjoys the pleasure of God).

About which prophet or saintly personage is it written in the Bible that, ‘Awake, O sword against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow’ (Zechariah 13:7)? And then about whom is it written thus, that on the throne of David shall Yahuda, our Righteousness come (Jeremiah)? And who said that I am Alpha and Omega, and the Almighty God? And about whom was this written that I who am wisdom dwelt with God eternally and through me were all things made, and all that is manifested of creation is through him? No one has ever seen God, the Father, but the Only Begotten (God) has made him known (John 1:18).

Now, please do justice to this. Do these words relate to yak-tann or yak-mann? Moreover, it is also worth keeping in mind that in Isaiah (9:6), it is stated that the Son that is bestowed upon us, and the Son who is born shall be adorned with these titles; that is to say: Almighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counsellor, and One who will sit on the Throne of David, whose government shall never see a decline.

Sixth—Regarding the arguments that you have presented from the Quran, I regret to say that I am still not convinced of it being revealed. When you convince me by proving it to be revealed, then its credentials will be accepted automatically.

Seventh—Dear Sir, nature or creation is the Work of God and revelation is the Word of God. There should be no contradiction in the Work and the Word of God. If any discourse seems doubtful or difficult at first sight, we would, of course, interpret it according to logical arguments; otherwise, where would we go?

Sir, you yourself have stated that the matters that need interpreting must be interpreted, and you also say something even greater, that we will not accept anything that goes against experience. This again is also tantamount to turning to human nature, with which we do not agree at all.

Eighth—As for my answer to the eighth point, I would only say that where the differentiation between a real and a metaphoric son is not made in the Bible, it does not stop our intellect from distinguishing between the two, and if others have the same attributes as Christ, then we would also accept them to be like Christ.