Second Paper

DEBATE 23 MAY 1893

PROCEEDINGS

The session was held again today, and today Reverend G. L. Thakur Dass also took part in it. It was proposed and agreed that no statement issued by anyone would be considered reliable in this debate that does not have the signatures of each of the two Presidents.

After this, at 30 minutes past 6, Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started dictating his question, but his reply had not yet been completed when time ran out. And Mr. Abdullah Atham and the Christian President permitted Mirza Sahib to finish his reply, and in 16 additional minutes, the answer was completed. After this it was mutually agreed upon that in the future, no party would be allowed extra time to complete their answers.

Mr. Abdullah Atham started documenting his rebuttal at 8:11. During this time, five minutes were spent on a dispute regarding the reading out of the list of verses; thus, 5 extra minutes were added to the time allotted to Mr. Abdullah Atham. His reply was completed at 9:16. Mirza Sahib then started dictating his rejoinder at 9:27 and completed it at 10:27. After this, the Presidents of both parties signed the respective papers, and these were then given to each other, and the session was adjourned.

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

1
2

Yesterday—22 May 1893—when I asked Deputy Abdullah Atham about the Divinity of the Messiah(as), I mentioned nine (9) points that needed to be answered. At the very beginning, I had written that it would be compulsory and required for the parties to write their questions and answers referencing their own Revealed Books.

Then, together with this, it was also written that every argument—meaning, logical argument and claim in support of which that argument is presented—must be done by giving a reference and statement from one’s respective Book.

My purpose in this was that in this way each book would be put to the test as to whether this miraculous power is to be found in them or not. Since 1300 years have passed, for example, since the Noble Quran was revealed, and similarly almost 1900 years have elapsed since the Gospel was documented according to writings of the disciples, then under these circumstances, to place reliance exclusively on the statements that have been documented in those books will be of benefit to the individual who believes in them and considers them accurate, in addition to holding no objection to whatever meanings are ascribed to them, but if the system of reasoning and logic is included along with this, then through this system we will come to know very quickly which is the True, Holy, Perfect, and Living Word of God Almighty.

Accordingly, my purport was that whichever book about which the claim is made that it is complete in itself and that it presents every grade of proof on its own, then that very book should be responsible itself for also presenting the logical arguments in support of its claims. It should not be the case that the book should be completely powerless and silent and some other person should stand up in its support. And every just person can easily understand that if the parties adopt this way of proceeding, then establishing the truth and refuting falsehood would be accomplished so very easily.

I had hoped that Mr. Abdullah Atham, who has already claimed that the Gospel is, in fact, a Complete Book, would also have certainly believed, along with this claim, that the Gospel itself presents its claims in a logical manner, but the reply given yesterday by the aforenamed gentleman left me greatly astonished as well as saddened that the aforenamed gentleman paid no attention to this and instead in his sixth point addressing me stated, ‘The argument 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.’

Now, every thinking person can reflect: When was it my wish that he should accept everything stated in the Holy Quran without investigation? I had merely written—that is to say, my intent was—that the logical arguments which are presented by the parties should not be their own conceived contrivances put forth; but rather, the book that has made a claim to be complete, that claim too should be proven in detail, and, moreover, that book itself should present the logical proof needed to establish this claim. Thus, by following this procedure, the book that in the end is proven to prevail shall have established this miraculous power for itself.

Since the Holy Quran clearly claims that it is a Complete Book, as it states:

—(Part 6, Ruku‘ 5)3

And as it states again at another place:

—(Part 15, Ruku‘ 1)4

The translation of these two verses is as follows:

This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you.

And this Quran guides towards a straight and perfect path.

That is to say, it is complete in providing guidance, and it contains everything that is required for guidance by way of logical arguments and heavenly blessings. The Christian gentlemen think that the Gospel is a Complete Book, and all the requirements of guidance are present in the Gospel. So this being the case, it is thus necessary to see who is true in their claim.

Accordingly, the logical arguments about the Divinity of the Messiah(as) should also have been presented from the Gospel, just as the Noble Quran presents arguments—logical as well as other arguments by virtue of the Divine light and blessings, etc. that it contains—in refutation of the Divinity [of Jesus, the Messiah].

So I hope now that Mr. Abdullah Atham would have understood the purpose of my question and thus, in accord with this purpose, he shall present such proofs and arguments based on the power and strength of the Gospel, and not from himself. And whosoever from us, both parties, presents any logical argument or a claim from himself, such a presentation would be taken to be a sign that his book is weak, and it fails to maintain within it the power and strength that a Complete Book should possess.

It will, however, be permissible that if a Book presents some logical argument in a brief, concise manner but in such a way that no aspect of it is doubtful, and similar content and context and the same is found in other parts of the Book, to support the same purpose, that such argument be put forth. And although such an argument should be brief and concise, yet every party shall have the right to present the preliminaries of the argument at some length to facilitate understanding for the population at large. It shall, however, never be allowed that one should make up some argument oneself to try and help the Revealed Book in a way similar to the help offered to a weak and helpless man, or a corpse that is put in motion with the support of one’s own arm and one’s own hand.

Now, the objection that Mr. Abdullah Atham has raised regarding the ‘reasoning by induction’ is only due to a lack of deliberation. He says that if the argument of reasoning by induction, which the Holy Quran presents, is accepted, then it is not possible to believe the fact that Adam was born without parents, and we would also have to reject the Divine attribute of Creator. It is sad that he remained unmindful of understanding that for proofs by induction, the universally accepted rule is that so long as a truth proven by inductive reasoning is not presented with a matter opposed and alien to it, the occurrence of which has also attained the status of an established fact, the truth established by inductive reasoning shall remain established and in force. For example, a human being has one head and two eyes, yet it would be insufficient to oppose this by merely stating that there may be some people in the world who have ten heads and twenty eyes; rather, such a human being should additionally be discovered somewhere and shown.

From among the two parties, is anyone in denial of the fact that Adam(as) was born without a father or mother? In addition, the practice of Allah has already been established regarding him. However, as far as the disputed issue is concerned, there is nothing that both parties have accepted to be established and proven. On the contrary, the party opposing the Christian gentlemen presents from their Book—that is to say, the Noble Quran—that based on inductive reasoning, the matter in dispute [i.e., the Divinity of Jesus(as)] is false. Now, if this argument is not perfect and complete, then what is required from the Gospel—that is to say, from the words of the Messiah(as)—is some argument put forth to refute it, through which it is proven that the argument presented by the Holy Quran contains this weakness.

Furthermore, it is self-evident that if proofs by inductive reasoning are rejected without presenting an opposing precedent, then all knowledge and science would be rendered worthless, and all research would come to a halt. For example, I inquire from Mr. Abdullah Atham, that if you were to give 1,000 rupees to an employee of yours for safekeeping and that money was placed inside a lockbox, and the key of the lock was given to the said employee, and there be no circumstances present of theft, yet said employee comes to you and presents this excuse that Sir, that money became liquid and flowed out from the lockbox, or that it became vapour and thus leaked out, would you accept this explanation of his?

You state that so long as anything does not conflict with the attributes of Allah, you will continue to consider it to be allowed and possible, but I ask you since you have for some time served as Extra Assistant and handled civil and criminal cases: Have you ever come across such a strange case in which this type of nonsensical excuse was accepted as satisfactory by the Court, and the party giving such excuse was awarded the case? Gentlemen! Carefully reflect once again; it is absolutely unacceptable that a person who opposes something established through inductive reasoning should present a new assertion that is contrary to something established by inductive reasoning, and it should be accepted unless that new assertion is proven true by some precedents. And this example that you have presented, that if this is the case, we would also have to deny God’s attribute of creation; I am amazed why you have brought forward this argument. What relevance is there at all of this argument here?

You know, and Muslims and Christians are agreed upon the fact, that the attributes of God which relate to His actions—for example, creation, etc.—carry a general authority in their meaning. That is to say, it has been accepted concerning them that Allah, the Lord of Glory, can employ these attributes from time immemorial and forever. For example, God Almighty created Prophet Adam(as) without any parents, so can anyone from our two groups prove from our Scripture that the power and strength of Allah Almighty to bring about birth in this way, which is established by inductive reasoning, has come to an end?

In fact, the Scriptures of both parties make manifest that whatsoever Allah, the Lord of Glory, has brought into being, He can bring the like of it into being again; as Allah, the Lord of Glory, says in the Holy Quran:

—(Part 23, Ruku‘ 4)5

[Meaning that] Has not He, who created the heavens and the earth, the power to create, like all these things, other things also? Yea, He indeed has the power, and He is indeed the Supreme Creator, the All-Knowing. That is to say, He is Perfect in creating and knows how to create in every manner. Verily, His command is no more than this, that when He intends for a thing to be, and He says to it, ‘Be!’ and so it comes into being therewith. So Holy is He in whose hand is the kingdom of all things. And to Him indeed will you be brought back.

Then He states at another place:

6

Meaning that all praise belongs to Allah, who is Lord of all the worlds. That is to say, His Lordship encompasses all the worlds.

Then at another place, He states:

7

Meaning that He knows every way of bringing about creation.

The few prophecies that Deputy Abdullah [Atham] has presented in support of his claim are totally against our stipulation. In our stipulation is included the statement that every single claim and argument must be presented by the Revealed Book itself.

Moreover, Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib is well aware that these prophecies are simply thrust upon the Messiah(as) by way of force. They are not the calibre of prophecies that—in the first instance—the Messiah(as) himself narrated in full and then ascribed to his person as confirmation of his truth, and the commentators were even in agreement upon this; and, furthermore, that they should be proven to be exactly so in the actual Hebrew language. Providing these proofs is your responsibility.

Until you prove these things with the specified assiduousness, your statement will remain like a claim which itself needs proof because we do not agree with you regarding the accuracy of these prophecies, nor in the accuracy of the interpretations, nor—indeed—the accuracy of the actual intent of the Messiah(as); yet you claim them to be accurate. Thus, it is incumbent upon you that you clarify all the steps in a perfectly crystal clear manner so that it becomes proven that in the interpretation of these prophecies, the Jews—who are the true inheritors of the Torah—also agree with you, in addition to all the commentators. Moreover, make it clear that the Messiah(as), too—by referencing the book, chapter, and verse of all the prophecies that you mention in full—has ascribed them to himself, and that no inheritor of the Torah has, till today, declared any disagreement with you regarding your interpretation, and has manifestly accepted the Messiah(as), son of Mary, whom you declare to be on the stature of God, and have accepted these as sufficient proofs for him to be accorded the stature of God—then we shall accept this and listen with great interest to your proof.

But to make clearer this very delicate issue, I remind again that till you prove all those points which I have written down, without any dissension, and present these together with the testimony of the Jewish scholars that the Son of Mary is God, on the basis of these prophecies, these hypothetical tales will be of no use to you.

The second part of this will be mentioned in response to these questions as the time is nearly up.

Reply from

MR. ABDULLAH ATHAM, CHRISTIAN

First—In reply to your inquiry, my respected Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad], I request that you please elaborate on the word ‘istiqra’ [Reasoning from Induction]. Does it not mean experience or customary? Please state if there is any other meaning apart from these.

Second—In your second premise, you state that revelation should be self-explanatory and it should not be made to depend on reasoning. Most of this is true, but to understand it, the comparison of revelation and intellect is that of the eye and light. If there is light but no eye, then that is useless; similarly, if there is an eye but no light then that is also worthless. To understand something we must have intellect even if the matter to be understood is a revelation. What I mean to say is that whatever matter is not supported by revelation and is only a man-made idea, then it will not be involved in the revelation, but whatever matter is a revelation, and is lit up by the Divine light of revelation from below, can human intellect not serve as a niche to house it?

Third—Sir, why do you ask for the Jews to agree with us while the words are present, as are the lexicons, and the rules as well? Do the translation yourself, and whatever meanings result, those would be acceptable. I cannot take responsibility word for word, but overall, summarily, Christ has taken upon himself all prophecies in this passage.

Thus, in John, chapter 5, verse 39, and in Luke, chapter 24, verse 27, this matter has been explained. John—You ‘Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.’ ‘And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.’

Apart from these, some special prophecies have also been written in the scriptures for Christ; for example, in Matthew, chapter 26, verse 31, where reference is given to the prophecy regarding, ‘the man that is my fellow.’

However, there are many more examples that I give a list of below:

Isaiah 6:1–12 in comparison with John 12:40, 41; Acts 28:26. Then Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1 in comparison with Matthew 3:3; Zechariah 12:1, 10 in comparison with John 19:37; Jeremiah 31:31–34 in comparison with Hebrews 8:6–12; Hebrews 10:12–19; Exodus 17:2; Numbers 20:3, 4; Numbers 21:4, 5; Deuteronomy 6:16. These four places in comparison with 1 Corinthians 10:9–11. Isaiah 41:4 and 44:6 in comparison with Revelation 1:8, 11, 17 and 2:8 and 21:6 and 22:13 and Joel 2:33 in comparison with Romans 10:9–14 and Isaiah 7:14 and 8:10 in comparison with Matthew 1:23.

Whichever issue you wish to take up from the Hebrew Language can be presented.

Fourth—The word kamal [excellence], which you refer to, that the Gospels should be excellent in themselves; I ask you in what sense do you mean ‘excellent’? Should it be in the work of a goldsmith or the work of a blacksmith?

These Books do not make any such claim. But to show the path to salvation is their claim. We can present the excellence that the Gospels have shown in this respect; for instance, it is written: ‘Under the heavens, no other name, except the Messiah, has been bestowed upon men through whom we can attain salvation.’8

And in the letter to the Romans, it is stated that if salvation is by grace, then work is no more work, but if salvation is by work, then grace is no more grace. This just proves the same point again that Christ himself said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6). And it should be remembered that in the Word of God, the Lord frequently says, I indeed am, I am. And this hints to the name which God said to Moses that My name is I am, so I am, and before this, I was not known by this name. This is being conveyed to you (Exodus 3:14).

(Due to the lack of time the answer remained incomplete)

Remaining Answer of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

I shall now dictate the rest of my answer that was left incomplete. Mr. Abdullah Atham states, ‘We do not believe a physical thing that is a manifestation of Allah, to be Allah, and we have not believed in the Son of Allah having a body. We believe Allah to be a spirit.’ This statement of the aforenamed gentleman is immensely contorted and deceptive. The aforementioned gentleman should have stated in clear words that we recognize Jesus(as) to be God and believe him to be the Son of Allah because every single person understands and knows that there is no mutually necessary association between the body and the spirit so that the body should be declared to be a part of some person. For example, when we know some human being to be a human being, do we consider him to be a human being because of a certain special body that he possesses?

Clearly, this thought is patently false since the body is constantly in a state of dissolution and renewal and in a few years, it is as if the previous body has been replaced by a new one. So what is the special peculiarity of the Messiah(as) in this context? No human being is a human being by virtue of the body he possesses; rather, it is by virtue of his spirit or soul that he is called a human being. If the body was necessary for a person to be who he is, then a person, upon reaching the age of 60, for example, should no longer be considered to be the same person, but someone completely different, because in the sixty years he has changed his body many times.

This is exactly the case of the Messiah(as). The blessed body that he was given in the beginning, with which he was born, could not be offered in atonement nor be of any use. Instead, by age thirty he had acquired a new body, and it is with this body that it is thought that he was placed on the cross and then, after joining with the spirit, has been seated forever on the right hand of God Almighty.

Now that it has been proven that the body has no connection with the attributes and qualities of the soul and whether a human or an animal, it would be distinguished as a human or an animal according to its soul, and the body is constantly in a state of dissolution. So given all this, if the Christian gentlemen believe that the Messiah is truly God Almighty, then what need is there for them to say that he is a manifestation of Allah? Do we say that man is a manifestation of man?

Similarly, if the soul of the Messiah(as) is not similar to a human soul, and he did not acquire his soul in the womb of Mary, the Ever-Truthful, in the way and according to the law of nature, as human beings do—in the manner which has been observed by medical science and doctors—then you must first present proof that the development of his foetus happened in some extraordinary manner. And then the question is why to make this belief [Divinity of Jesus] known to people, hiding and concealing it like someone afraid, couched in various ways and forms. Instead, you should just clearly state that the Messiah is our God, and there is no other God beside him. Considering, that God, in His perfect attributes, cannot be divided up and the word ‘God’ cannot be applied to the being that lacks even one attribute from all God’s perfect and complete attributes.

So in such a case, I cannot understand how they became three. When you gentlemen have yourselves already agreed and accepted that it is necessary for God Almighty to be the Possessor of all complete attributes, in that case, this division which has been done—that is to say, the Son of God, who is a complete God; God the Father, who is a complete God; and the Holy Spirit, who is a complete God—what is the meaning of these, and for what reason are these three names given? Because the names, being different, requires that there be some attribute more or less in each.

But since you have admitted that there is no increase or decrease with regard to the attributes, then out of these three persons of the Godhead, which of them is distinctive whom you have not yet revealed? Whatever you will declare to be the distinguishing feature that, too, will be an attribute of all the perfect attributes that should be found in the being that is called God. Now that that attribute is found in this being who has been declared to be God, then against this, to give some other name—for example, the Son of Allah or the Holy Spirit—becomes totally absurd and pointless.

Because this is a very profound matter, you gentlemen should really ponder diligently over what I have just said, lest you ignore these matters in your reply. God Almighty is that Being, who is the Possessor of all complete and perfect attributes, and does not need any help from any other being, nor in being Perfect, is He in need of any other. The similitude of Moses and the bush that Mr. Abdullah Atham presented in item 2 is irrelevant for this current argument. The aforenamed gentleman should kindly present proof from the Holy Quran showing where it is written that the fire itself was God or that the voice came from the fire. In fact, God Almighty clearly states in the Holy Quran that:

—(Surah an-Naml, Part 19, Ruku‘ 16)9

Meaning that when Moses came, it was proclaimed [by a voice]: Blessed is he who is in the fire and also those around it, and Holy is Allah from having a body or from coiling up into Himself, and He is the Lord of all the worlds.

Please notice that God clearly states in this verse that blessed is he who is in the fire, and those who are around it, and God Almighty called out to bestow this blessing upon them. From this, we learn that the thing that was in the fire was what received the blessings, not the one who gave the blessings. God uses the word [nudiya—called out] to indicate that He Himself blessed the inside of the fire and its surroundings. From this, it is proven that God was not in the fire and this is not the belief of Muslims either. In fact, Allah, the Lord of Glory, rebuts this fanciful idea in the next verse by stating that:

10

Meaning that God Almighty is pure from such ‘passing into things’ and ‘descending’, and He is the Lord of every single thing.

Similarly, it is written in Exodus 3:2 that during that time, ‘the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.’ And whereas Mr. Abdullah Atham states that it is also written in the Quran at this place that, I am the Lord of your father Ishaq(as) [Isaac], and Ibrahim(as) [Abraham], and Y‘aqub(as) [ Jacob]—this is completely contrary to the facts. This is not written in the Holy Quran anywhere. If this is the plight of the references cited by the aforenamed gentleman, that he fearlessly presents a reference that is completely contrary to the facts, then those references that he has cited from the Torah and the New Testament also merit being checked for authenticity with the books at hand.

Then the aforementioned gentleman states that in the Torah, the Messiah is referred to as [yak-tann] and the Prophets as [yak-mann].

I declare that neither the word yak-tann nor yak-mann can be found anywhere in the Torah. It would be a very great favour of the aforenamed gentleman if he proves, by explaining on the basis of the Torah, that whenever the other Prophets have been called the Sons of Allah, it was meant to be in the sense of yak-mann [that is to say, one in spirit], and that when the Messiah, peace be upon him, was called Son of Allah, it was meant in the sense of yak-tann [that is to say, one in body].

In my understanding, however, I believe the other Prophets excel the Messiah, peace be upon him, as regards these honorific titles. This is so because the Messiah(as) himself settled this issue when he stated that Why do you grieve when I am called the Son of Allah, this is no great thing, in Psalms it is even written that ‘You are all gods.’

The exact words of the Messiah(as) that are written in John 10:3511 are as follows: ‘If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?’

Now, unbiased people should reflect upon these verses—fearing Allah Almighty—that upon such an occasion when the Messiah(as) was directly questioned regarding his Sonship, was it not incumbent upon the Messiah(as) that if he were truly the Son of Allah he should have said that he is, in fact, the Son of Allah Almighty, yet you all are men? But he gave his rebuttal in such a way that he put a seal on it by saying that you are partners of a higher rank in title since I have only been referred to as ‘the Son’ while you have been called ‘God’.

Then the aforenamed gentleman states that although others have also been called sons in the Torah, the Messiah(as) has been glorified very greatly. The reply to this is that these praises will only rightfully be accepted as applying to the Messiah when you prove them to be so in accord with the conditions that we have set forth. Secondly, the statement of the Messiah, peace be on him, in John, chapter 10, is contrary to your explanation and in accord with our statement. These thoughts of yours have been refuted by the Messiah himself, peace be upon him.

The rest of the answer will be written after your reply.