Third Paper

DEBATE 24 MAY 1893

PROCEEDINGS

Today, Mr. Abdullah Atham started dictating his answer at 6:16, which was completed at 7:16 and was read out loud. Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started dictating his reply at 7:50 and finished it at 8:46, and it was also then read out loud.

Deputy Abdullah Atham started dictating his reply at 9:25 and completed it at 10:25, which was then read out loud. After this, the Presidents of both parties signed the respective writings that were then given to each party. Afterward, some suggestions were made to change the style of the debate, but the original format remained in force.

The session then came to a close.

24 MAY 1893

Statement by

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

First of all, I am pleased to hear that the argument of reasoning by induction does not apply to Adam and Eve, which means that an exception is allowed to the general rule.

First—You state that the body of Christ was in a state of decay; therefore, it could not atone, nor be of any other use. In reply to this, I submit that we do not declare the human body of Christ to be Christ; but rather, that whole human part of him that was free from sin and, except for sin, in all other things, was equal to us and mortal. And apart from being human, he was also the manifestation of Allah; that is to say, the place for the manifestation of Allah in humanity to take upon itself the burden of the sins of all, and the Second Person of Allah [the Son of Allah] enabled that weight to be so carried. And, thus, compensation for sins being done, the atonement of sins was completed. What then was the need for another physical body to remain eternally?

Second—Your second objection is that if Christ is God Almighty, then what is the need to call him the manifestation of Allah? Do we call man the manifestation of man? Answer: Why is Christ, the man, held out to be the likeness of the Divinity attached to his person? In a human, the body is actually a separate thing, and the soul is separate, and the life-force is a separate thing. Thus, the soul is that thing that possesses the attributes of knowledge and will. The body is that thing which possesses neither knowledge nor will. The life-force is that regulating system which provides nourishment through the veins and sinews even to the plants. However, God, or the manifestation of Allah, is distinct from all such contingencies and exists independently in His own right by Himself.

Third—In the thinking of the Honourable Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib, the soul of Jesus Christ came from Mary according to the law of nature, and, therefore, he cannot be God. In reply to this, I submit that although the human soul of Jesus was not born according to the law of nature, nonetheless, it is the same in its nature. And a soul does not derive from another soul, so that it may be said that his soul came by splitting from that of Mary. Since the soul is the very essence of a person and not the name of any law or ordinance, but a thing—the sum total of every attribute and definition of a person—then why do you say that the soul of Jesus Christ, came from Mary? Why not say concerning it that a new creation came into being? Apart from this, what does this have to do with Divinity? We have repeatedly said that his being a manifestation of Allah is quite apart from his humanity.

Fourth—Your question is: Since God cannot be divided, how can there be three gods and what distinctions are the bases of this division? In reply, I submit that, according to us, the mystery of the Trinity is that on the one hand it is a form of Unity, and on the other hand it is three. We shall explain this presently.

The attribute of incomparability comes from the attribute of endlessness because only that thing can be absolutely incomparable that erases all possibility of any comparison, and this possibility can only be erased when there remains no space for comparison. In other words, that thing should also be endless, concerning which it can be said that in its antiquity and essence endlessness and incomparability are one. Since no one can say when incomparability issued forth from endlessness and where it resides, it cannot separate from endlessness.

Thus, you can see from this example that one thing similar to endlessness, exists in its own right, while another similar to incomparability, is inseparable from endlessness. And look very carefully that in both these attributes there exists a premise which if stated extempore it would run as follows. Although the two examples look alike in one sense, they are also different in another. As we have given the example of two attributes, so these attributes instead of being parts of a thing encompass the whole thing. Similarly, the Being whom we call God, the Father, and He, like endlessness, exists on His own, and those whom we call the Son and the Holy Ghost, they are inseparable from God, the Father.

Now, we have shown this distinction among them. We do not say that their essence is divisible. Thus, we cannot be accused of being polytheists, because we believe in God being One, without any associate. We do not make three gods. However we find all three Beings or Persons of the Trinity, equal, each to the other, glorified by way of attributes in the scriptures, and they are one in their essence but each in its own right, being inseparable from the other, are consequently three.

Fifth—You ask me to prove from the Quran that the fire was, in actual fact, God or that the voice came from the fire, and the voice was heard saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ In reply to this, I submit that at the moment we will not discuss the voice that came from the unseen and which conversed with Moses, but that voice said this, ‘Surely, I am your Lord’ [Surah Ta Ha, Ruku‘ 1]. If Your Honour says that this voice did not come from the fire, then I can only say that the style of the utterance of these words does not show that it came from anywhere other than the fire.

And in Surah al-Qasas, it is written thus. Concerning the same voice that emanated from the fire or the bush, indeed I am the Lord of all the worlds. And the third verse, besides these two verses, that Your Honour has mentioned, the phrase that I am the Lord of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is actually in the Torah. I erroneously attributed this quote to the Quran. This much error you can accept to be mine that I attributed the words of the Torah to the Quran, but actually there is no difference in I am your Lord, and I am the Lord of all the worlds, and that which is written in the Torah that, I am the Lord of your father Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob—nothing less and nothing more. The argument of the manifestation of Allah comes from this because a visible object cannot be God.

Sixth—In reply to your statement that each of the two words [yak-tann] and [yak-mann] are not found in the Torah, I submit that I made a deduction; in other words, I concluded. If you keep objecting like this, then this would be similar to that person named Muhammad Bakhsh, whom someone confronted by asking Why do you not offer prayer? His reply was Where is it written that Muhammad Bakhsh should offer prayer? Now, this is no argument but just a joke.

Seventh—You referred to these words that Christ, our Lord, said that You don’t declare it blasphemy when your judges and divines are called ‘gods’, so why do you accuse me for saying I am the ‘Son of God’? Our Lord Christ used to address himself to the Jewish people saying that I am the Son of God, so they were getting ready to stone him saying that By calling yourself the Son of God, you make yourself equal to God and this is blasphemy; it is for this reason that we stone you.

Our Lord rebutted their assertion by saying that God is the equal of God. If I call myself God then your divines were also called ‘gods’, so in their case why did you not accuse them of blasphemy? Thus, our Lord silenced them, not denying his Divinity nor giving any proof of it, leaving it as a separate issue, in which there is a confession of nothing less nor anything more.

Eighth—You state that the praises of Jesus Christ, in the Torah are not greater than the other Prophets. In reply to this, I submit that all these Prophets placed their hope for salvation upon Christ, so how can you say that Christ has not been given greater praise than the other Prophets? Apart from Christ, which other Prophet has been referred to as an equal to God? See: Zechariah 13:7; That Jehovah our Righteousness come who is about to come on the throne of David—Jeremiah 23:5, 6, 7. That Mighty God, Everlasting Father, is Prince of Peace, Counsellor. Reformer, who will reign on David’s throne forever—Isaiah 9:6, 7.

Postscript

The rest, which Your Honour has asked regarding the superiority of the Gospels, please see John 12:48–50. The Gospels are the scriptures that will be used for the final judgement of all the peoples; that is to say, of the whole world. (The rest, later).

24 MAY 1893

Reply of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

1

The questions of yesterday remained somewhat incomplete, and I will answer those first. Mr. Abdullah Atham asks me what is istiqra [Reasoning from Induction] and what is the definition of istiqra. In reply to this, it should be clearly understood that istiqra is the method whereby the results obtained by studying—as far as possible—the observable elements of a class, are assumed to apply to the entire class. In other words, to the extent that we can see various elements of a class of things, or can find proof of them from history, then that one special quality or one distinctive feature that they possess inherently, we should take it to be a characteristic of all elements of that class of such things, till the time that we observe an element from the same class that does not, in fact, manifest that same characteristic.

For example, as I have already said before, studying all individual human beings, as far as is within the realm of possibility, this fact has become proven and acknowledged that man has two eyes. Thus, the issue of having two eyes will remain established and in force until, in opposition to this—for example—the having of four or more eyes does not become proven. It is on this very basis that I had said that this rational argument of Allah, the Lord of Glory:

2

that has been presented by way of an inductive argument, is a decisive and conclusive inductive argument. Until and unless this argument is refuted, and it is proven that Sons of God were also sent down as Messengers, it cannot be established that the Messiah(as) was the real Son of God.

This is so because Allah, the Lord of Glory, clearly points out in this argument that, starting from the Messiah, we can search and look as far back as the very beginning of the coming of Prophets and see if—apart from humans—any God or Son of God was ever sent down. And if it is said that this has never happened before, but now it has, then in the art of debating this is known as masadir-‘alal-matlub; in other words, the very matter that is in dispute is presented as an argument in its support. The point is that this is the very issue we are debating: How did the Messiah(as) come into the world as the Son of God by breaking an established time-honoured practice?

And if it is said that by his unique manner of birth, Prophet Adam(as) also broke the established law of natural birth, then the answer to this is that we are indeed ourselves convinced that if some particular occurrence—which is against logical or historical arguments and opposed to inductive reasoning—can be proven to have taken place by logical or historical proofs, then we will believe it. It is clear that both parties accept this unique birth of Prophet Adam(as). Thus, that manner of giving birth is proven to be another particular practice of God, just as it is a practice of Allah to bring about the birth of man from a drop of sperm.

If we are to compare the Messiah(as) with Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, with a view to benefiting from this precedent, then what is required is, that in the same way and with those same logical arguments that the birth of Prophet Adam(as) in the very beginning of the human race has been accepted to be unique, similarly it should be proved that the Messiah(as) was the Son of God, or God, and came into the world by contravening the previous well-known proven practice of the manner of coming of Prophets, and that he came as God or the Son of God. Then there would be no excuse left for us to deny because when an occurrence going against inductive reasoning is proven to have taken place, then that matter also automatically becomes included in the law of nature and the practice of God. So please prove this issue, but with logical arguments.

Then Mr. Abdullah Atham states that revelation should be self-explanatory. So let it be clear that we agree on this point. Without a doubt, for a true revelation, this very condition is necessary that the exposition of all its parts needing explanation should also be done based on the revelation itself. As we see in the Noble Quran, there is this verse in Surah al-Fatihah; namely:

3

Now, in this verse, the words 4 are succinct and require explanation; therefore, at another place, God Almighty elaborated upon this Himself, stating:

5

And then Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib says in his statement, which I shall summarise: ‘It is not necessary that Divine revelation should prove its claims with logical arguments, only stating its claims would be sufficient, and then the readers of that book would develop the arguments themselves.’ This statement of Deputy Sahib is to hinder and protect his own wiggle room because I had presented the argument that a mandatory sign and condition that a true Book from Allah Almighty must satisfy is that it must itself set forth its claim as well as provide the arguments in support of that claim itself. In this way every reader, upon finding those decisive arguments, may be able to thoroughly understand its claims without the claim being devoid of proof, because this is considered a shortcoming of every speaker that he should go on making claims but not provide any argument in support of them.

Now, upon hearing this condition, Deputy Sahib became preoccupied with this worry that Our Gospel is totally lacking this lofty stature and cannot in any way compete with the Holy Quran, it would be best to try and evade this by any means. So I think this is a favour that Deputy Sahib is doing to the Holy Gospel in that he is himself engaged in keeping its deficiencies hidden. It is sad, however, that you did not pay attention to this fact whilst you were dictating these words, that, for a very long time you served as an Extra-Assistant and you know full well how a judge, by virtue of his judicial authority, gives a ruling between two contending parties.

Did you ever have occasion to simply decree or dismiss a case considering it pointless to give conclusive arguments in the final record of court proceedings, based upon which the true are adjudged truthful and the liars declared to be liars? And this is only a mundane worldly matter with the attendant loss likely being nothing very great. But should the Word of God Almighty, who warns of an everlasting Hell if His Words are misunderstood, simply announce its claims and place the whole world in misery without giving arguments and proofs in support of its claims, which was, in fact, its responsibility? Is this what ought to be expected from His Mercifulness?

Apart from this, you are well aware that Prophets appear when the world is engulfed in darkness and human intellect has become weak and reasoning defective, while the fumes of frenzied evil desires prevail. Now, I ask you to be just: Is it not incumbent upon God Almighty in such a predicament that He put forth His Words fortified by irrefutable arguments in order to deliver people out of the darkness, rather than hurling them into even greater darkness and confusion by presenting complicated, roundabout statements?

It is clear that before the Messiah(as), the Jews, the Children of Israel, used to believe in God Almighty in a simple, straightforward manner, and they were very satisfied in believing in Him thus. Every heart sought to convey that God is True; He is the Creator of the earth and the heavens and the true Creator of all things. He is One and has no partner, and no one had any doubt identifying God. Then, when the Messiah(as) came, they heard the statements of His Most Eminent Holiness [Jesus], peace be upon him, and they became alarmed as to which God this person was presenting. There was certainly no mention of any God like this in the Torah.

Then, the Messiah(as), who was a true Prophet of God Almighty and His Beloved and Chosen One, to remove this false concept which had become entrenched in the hearts of the Jews due to their shortsightedness, laid before them those blessed words of his that are present in John 10:29–30.6 So that excerpt is being written down exactly in what follows and all attendees should listen to these words of the Messiah(as) with great care and attention because it delivers the full and complete verdict between us and the Christians, and that excerpt is:

‘My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself, God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law that I said, Ye are gods? 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, every just and devout person can understand that, upon hearing the word father, and that I and my Father are one, the Jews thought that this person is proclaiming himself to be the real and actual Son of God, and accordingly raised this objection. So in reply to this, the Messiah(as) said in absolutely clear words that there is nothing extraordinary about him, and asked them to see that even the title of god had been applied in their favour.

Now, it is obvious that had the Messiah(as) understood himself as having been born of Allah in reality and actually considered himself to be the Son of God Almighty, then at this moment of debate and misunderstanding when the Jews had accused him, he should have come forth bravely and declared clearly, manifestly, and openly that I am in reality born of Allah and in actuality the Son of God. What strange reply was this, that if I declare myself to be the Son, then you have also been called God? On the contrary, he had been given an opportunity upon this occasion to emphatically present the proofs in support of his claim, and he should have presented to them all those prophecies that were written down by Deputy Atham in his reply of yesterday as well as the entire list he submitted. And on this occasion, he should have said, You are incensed at my trivial statement that I am the Son of God. In actuality, I am also God according to these statements of your Books, and according to such and such prophecies, I am also the All-Powerful God and the Equal of God too. What attribute of God is there that is not found in me?

In short, this is the passage of the Holy Gospel that resolves all its passages and all prophecies of the Bible and serves as a commentary and explanation of them—but for him who fears Allah Almighty.

Then, Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib states, ‘Why should we be asked for the concurrence of the Jews?’ So let it be clearly known that the reason why we seek the concurrence of the Jews is that they are the progeny of Prophets and have continuously been taught by the Messengers, and the Holy Gospel also gives testimony that they were taught everything through the Prophets. In fact, Jesus(as) testifies himself and says: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not’ (Matthew 23:1)7.

Now, from this pronouncement of the Messiah(as), it is evident that he is advising his followers and disciples, that the opinion of the Jews, in regards to the Old Testament, is worthy of being accepted—You should certainly accept it for they are sitting on the seat of Moses. From this, it is clearly understood that to reject the testimony of the Jews would be a form of disobedience to the command of the Messiah(as). And the Jews certainly do not write in any of their commentaries that some true God or Son of God will come. However, they are waiting for a true Messiah, and they do not consider that Messiah to be God, but if they do so understand him to be, then you should prove this from their books. (The rest, later.)

24 MAY 1893

Statement Of

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

Remaining Answer—The Superiority and Perfection of the Word of God

First—The Gospel claims that it is an Everlasting Word, so much so, that the judgement of people will happen according to it (John 12:48–50).

Second—The Gospel regards itself as the revealer of the eternal secret of salvation (Romans 16:25, 26) (1 Peter 1:20).

Third—The Gospel regards itself as the power of God (Romans 1:16).

Fourth—The Gospel regards itself bringing life and immortality to light (2 Timothy 1:16).

Fifth—The Gospel deems itself to be the words expressed by the Spirit of God, not human wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:12, 13 and 2 Peter 1:19).

Sixth—In comparison to this Gospel, every other gospel is naught (Galatians 1:8).

So, these are the things that point to the superiority, perfection, beauty, and beneficence of the Word of God, and not those matters concerning social behaviour about which philosophers and physicians can also provide the needed exposition to men.

You stated that it is written in the Holy Quran . It is very likely that according to the text of the Quran this relates to social behaviour and the mention of what is permitted and what is forbidden in this context.

Answer to the Objections of 24 May 1893

First—We have understood the meaning of istiqra [inductive reasoning] to be what experience of nature routinely, and in the past, has taught, without interruption; this is what reasoning by induction means. The statement of Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib in this regard is correct that if there is any possibility of an exception, it is not enough to prove the possibility of an exception; it is necessary that it be proven in reality. Thus, I would submit regarding this only that the case of Christ is completely unique, for which we have presented verses from the Word of God.

We would further like to show that multiplicity in unity is present in the Old Testament. Had it not been present, the Jews could have been considered to be right; however, because this matter is present there, they should have no excuse. I shall present two cases by way of example: First of all, it is stated in Genesis 1:26 in Hebrew, that is to say, Elohim God said, ‘Let us make Adam in our images, and after our likenesses.’ Second, in Genesis 3:22 it is written that Jehovah Elohim said, ‘Behold, in knowing good and evil, the man has become like one of us.’ In this verse, the phrase that is translated as has become like one of us (in Hebrew it is written ), seeing the first person including others form, the Jews took the meaning that in this situation God Almighty included the angels with Him. And Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Bahadur has written that the others in this phrase refers to that class of Adams before the commonly known Adam, who were destroyed because of their sins, and that in the words , it is not the ‘first person including others’ but rather the ‘third person plural’ form that is meant. The purpose of both these people being that the teaching of multiplicity in Unity should thus be prevented from being proven.

Second—Now we ask the following questions from these people: Firstly, to the Jews, where is the reference to your angels in the text of the Scripture? Is the linguistic form ‘us’ not a pronoun? And is it not necessary for a pronoun to have a referent nearby? And if some statement should not identify a referent in itself then is that statement not said to be confusing and unintelligible? For example, if I were to say to somebody that ‘it was like this’ and before or after this statement, I do not make clear as to what ‘it’ was, then is this not a confusing statement? Thus, when they talk of the companionship of angels, they should show these angels within the very body of the text. Secondly, if the angels are indeed referred to here, then their knowledge of evil must be either inherent or earned. If it is inherent, then they cannot be created beings because inherent knowledge is a characteristic of one who is self-existing, and if it is earned, then this earning makes them impure. So then how could they be worthy of going in the company of the Most Pure Creator? Our first question to Sir Syed is that same one. Where is the referent in the text about the Adams who were there before the commonly known Adam that you perceive? Let alone finding such mention from the text, where, from geology—of which you are proud—can you find it? Besides this, if not in geology, let us know even if you find such mention in any of the other sciences. We are certain that he will never be able to find any such thing, nor can the Jews discharge this duty. They only present false ideas to silence the mouths of Christians; what sentence can be clearer and what other interpretation can there be of such a sentence as Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil? Looking at this sentence through the lexicon and logical terminologies, and the grammatical and morphological meanings, this statement meets all these standards.

The use of the plural for the respect that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Bahadur has mentioned regarding Elohim—can the gentleman show us from anywhere in nature or in events, if ever, in any proper name as well, there can be shown respect or disrespect? Can the name of Sir Syed be Sir Syed Ahmadan? If this is not mere deception then what is it?

Sir Syed Ahmad says that in Ba’alim and Istrafim the use of [ya] and [mim] is for respect. This is not just false; it is, in fact, the highest form of falsehood. Since these were fictitious idols—not real persons—and were worshipped as idols in various places, so there were many idols, and for this reason, there was plurality expressed in their names. Just as statues of Krishna and Ramchandra come from Jasmeer and it is said that they are dealers of Ramchandras and Krishnas. In short, in a proper name, there is nothing of respect or disrespect.

Third—A matter that is beyond perception of its existence is wisdom—we shall present and prove its occurrence from the Divine Word. So, we have clearly presented the issues of the Divinity of Christ and the ‘Trinity in Unity’ from the revealed Books, and we have also shown its possibility logically. So now, no further burden of proof remains upon us.

Fourth—The explanation of a revelation should be through revelation itself. In this matter, your statement was correct to a great extent and best, because if a revelation seems at some place to be too concise or confusing, then another place in the revelation can serve to elaborate and explain the former. However, if some teaching is in the revelation only in one place, and that revelation is also not explained well, then there should be room to interpret that revelation logically. We cannot throw such revelation away as worthless, but rather we must try to interpret it logically.

Fifth—Regarding where Christ our Lord said Why do you accuse me of blasphemy for saying I am the Son of God? Aren’t your judges and divines called ‘gods’? There is no charge of blasphemy against them, so why upon me? By this he in no way denied his Divinity; rather, deeming their anger unjustified he controlled it. Apart from this in Matthew 16:13–16, our Lord accepted this title from his disciples, that he is the Son of the living God. Then it is recorded in Matthew 26:63 that the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said.’ (The rest, later.)