Sixth Paper

DEBATE 27 MAY 1893

PROCEEDINGS

The meeting was again held today. Dr. Henry Martyn Clark suggested that Dr. Inayatullah Nasir should be appointed as a replacement for Reverend G. L. Thakur Dass since he had gone to Gujranwala on an important assignment. The suggestion was accepted.

Next, a motion by Dr. Inayatullah, with the support of Mir Hamid Shah, was approved unanimously that although it was in the original conditions of the debate that every speech must carry signatures of the speakers and the presiding officers, the signatures of the presiding officers should be deemed sufficient.

Concerning the debate, it was decided that Munshi Ghulam Qadir Fasih and Mirza Khuda Bakhsh from the Muslims and Babu Fakhar-ud-Din and Sheikh Waris Din from the Christians should decide among themselves and report what appropriate price for the ‘Debate’ can be fixed? Afterward, it will be decided by the Christian side how many copies they will be able to buy; and the ‘Debate’ that the Christians will buy should be printed in such a manner that the proceedings and the speeches would be reported verbatim and no party would be permitted to make any alterations.

At half past six, Mr. Abdullah Atham started to dictate his reply and completed it at half past seven, and it was read out loud. Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started to dictate his reply at five minutes past eight and finished at five minutes past nine. Afterward, there was a dispute on a certain matter, which was resolved and the two presiding officers signed it. That is attached to these proceedings. That is all.

Because Mr. Abdullah Atham was not well, he presented an already written statement for the last answer and suggested that someone should read it on his behalf. The Muslim Presiding Officer objected that it was contrary to the rules to read a previously written statement. This dispute continued for some time. In the end, it was decided that Monday should be added as an extra day in this debate and, similarly, an extra day shall be added to the latter part of the debate.

Furthermore, it was also decided, with the consent of Mirza Sahib, that if Mr. Abdullah Atham is—God forbid—still indisposed on Monday, then Dr. Henry Martyn Clark shall have the authority to appoint someone else in his place. It was also decided that on the 29th, Mr. Abdullah Atham will give the last reply and, in the second part, Mirza Sahib will give the last reply, and there will be no limit on the time, and the proceedings will end by eleven o’clock. In other words, the last period shall belong to the respondent that he should reply. If after that any time is left, the questioner will not be given that time, and the meeting will be terminated. Because the first disputed issue still needed to be decided, it was decided that, in the future, no one would be allowed to have copied a previously written paper word for word. This decision was arrived at by mutual consent of both parties, and there is no objection by either party.

27 May 1893

27 MAY 1893

Statement Of

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

First—Concerning the path to salvation and the Signs of those who have achieved the salvation that Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib has stated, we have already mentioned that a full debate of this issue shall start the beginning of next week. We would like, however, to mention here that your definition of the word salvation is incomplete. It was not necessary for you to describe the Christian method of salvation as artificial, unnatural, and false. In any case, we shall examine what you have said presently when it is our turn to raise objections.

Second—We have answered fully, with room to spare, concerning the verses of John 10 that were presented. Instead of demonstrating some fault with the answer, you have continued just to repeat the verse, as if repetition is sufficient and a lengthy discourse somehow establishes the truth.

In John 10:36, where the words [makhsus—sanctified], and [bheija-hu’a—one who is sent], have been translated, we have explained that the actual word corresponding to makhsus, in the original language, means ‘sanctified’, and bheija-hu’a, is indicative of what he said, that, ‘I am heavenly and you are earthly.’ In all the references you have given, this word is not used in respect of any other saintly person. In the lines of Isaiah 13:3, the word is [ or erkhome] which means, bheija-hu’a. 1 Samuel 12:8 the word is [ or apostello] and the meaning is the same. In Genesis 45:7 and also in Jeremiah 35:13 the word is [ or vadize] the meaning of which is, to go. And all these words are very different from the words [ or agiazi] in the passage under dispute, and these words have nothing to do with the passage in dispute. And what we have said is correct that the words mean, ‘the one sanctified by God and sent’; that is to say, sent from heaven.

Third—You ask, ‘Did the Jewish people consider Israel, etc. to be guilty of blasphemy for being given this same title.’ We have answered this again and again, but it is sad that, for some reason, you did not understand. Look carefully again on our previous discussion to see that the distinction that Christ enjoyed was not in any other venerable personage.

Fourth—When people look at the issue, they will be able to assess justly regarding what Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib says, that we have only made a verbal claim of salvation and have merely employed the word. We ask you, sir, why did you not pay attention to the verses quoted from our Holy Books; why did you not show any defect in them before ignoring them?

Fifth—Mirza Sahib asks us to show signs according to Mark 16. In reply to this, it should be clear that we do not disagree with the generality of the promise, that anyone who has faith should have these Signs. The only question is whether, with the generality of the promise, is it also meant that anyone and everyone could be the means for showing these Signs? Is it not the case that some disciples, because of their weak faith, did not accept the witness of the reliable people, nor the promises of the Lord and the prophecies of the previous Prophets, and they were reprimanded for their doubt? And, was it not the custom of our Lord that those whom he reprimanded, he strengthened as well?

When he said to them to go into the world and these Signs will accompany those who believe, he did not mean you were weak in regards to miracles before, but that future miracles shall happen through you. Was this reprimand given to the priests of our age also? We agree that the promise is a general one, but show us where those through whom this promise is to be fulfilled are also similarly meant to be everyone. We have read out to you all that is in Mark 16 in our statement. Did the same situation exist there or not? Thus, when those through whom these Signs were to be shown were specific, is the stretching of this promise beyond the time of the disciples misplaced or not?

Regarding the fulfilment of this promise, read Acts 8:14 and see if it is not written that when the apostles John and Peter went to Samaria and found many Christians there, they asked them if they had also received the Holy Spirit or not? They replied that they had not even heard about the Holy Spirit, so they were asked at whose hand they had been baptised. They replied that they had been baptised at the hand of John the Baptist. Then they laid their hands on their heads, and they received the Holy Spirit. Does this example not show that our explanation is correct and true, and your stretching to eternity the promise of miracles is wrong?

1 Corinthians 12:4 tells us that, ‘Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.’ In the same chapter, verse 28, ‘And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?’

This clearly shows that in those days when the disciples were present, they considered any special faculty as a Divine gift and declared that some could do this while others could do that, yet nobody was deprived of miracles.

But the Divine Word has declared in 1 Corinthians 13:2, 8: ‘And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.’ ‘Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.’ And in the last verse it is written, ‘And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.’ Because when faith becomes a reality, it remains as faith, when hope is fulfilled, it reaches its completion, but love never reaches its end. And it should also be remembered that love is the special name of God because God is love. The conclusion that we can draw from all these matters is that just as miracles have not been promised forever, similarly they do not have the highest rank regarding salvation. But at one time when the new teaching was given, the miracles were granted for the establishment and evidence of that teaching. If miracles happened every day, they would lose their effect. Summing up, the verse that you have used to construe a general promise, we have explained that it is dependent on those through whom these Signs were to be shown and those are wholly specific. And after looking at the contents of Mark 16, you will not be able to consider this statement to be wrong in any way at all.

Six—You say, sir, the Messiah also refused to show any ‘at will’ miracles. You do injustice, sir. Where did he refuse? After people had already seen the heavenly Signs, and as a jest they asked to be shown more heavenly Signs, it was declared that ‘this evil and adulterous’ group will not be shown any Sign. Now, sir, in all fairness does refusing to show a Sign mean not being able to show a Sign? If a powerful person says he will not do a certain thing, does it mean that he cannot do that thing?

In Matthew 9, John 11 and Luke 7 and others, miracles can be seen very clearly. Sir, I expected better from your wisdom and intellect that you will not construe such meanings.

Seven—You say that the Messiah used two abusive words. Can calling evil an evil or a bastard a bastard be termed use of abusive language? Had you followed the Islamic traditions of conversation, you would not have said such disrespectful words about a courageous and innocent Prophet. For this, we regret that Prophets should be accused of using abusive language. (The rest, later.)

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

My question to Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib was that, ‘Since you believe Jesus(as) to be God, what proof do you have in support of his Divinity?’ There are many sects and nations that consider their reformers and founders of their religions as God. For instance, believers of Hinduism and Buddhism also present scriptural arguments to prove the Divinity of their founders based on their Puranas and Shastras. In fact, they present such miracles and supernatural feats, and so forcefully, that you possess nothing like it. For instance, the marvels they mention having been carried out by Raja Ramachandra, Raja Krishna, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahadev are not hidden from you. So, this being the case, are most excellent logical arguments not needed to establish the One True God from among so many different gods?

Wherefore, in presenting claims and in presenting scriptural proofs, all these gentlemen are just like you; nay rather, they appear to have the upper hand in presenting these scriptural proofs. And I did not just draw the attention of Deputy Sahib to this, but I actually presented logical arguments extracted from the Holy Quran in refutation of the Divinity of the Messiah, that a man, who is burdened with all the human necessities, cannot in any way be considered to be God. And never has it ever been established that God or the Son of God came into this world, like a Prophet, to preach and reform the people. I regret that Deputy Sahib did not give any satisfactory reply to this. From my side, the condition had been stipulated from the outset that in this debate, both parties will present their claims from their own revealed scriptures, and will also present logical arguments from these same Revealed Books. However, instead of presenting any logical arguments in support of Jesus being God or the Son of God, Deputy Sahib went on and on making claim after claim, feeling so very proud of some of the prophecies that he had extracted to present from the Letters to the Hebrews and some other places of the Bible. Alas! He does not understand that until such prophecies are proven to be, in fact, accurate and that the Messiah(as) has declared himself to be the fulfilment of those prophecies, and logical arguments are presented to support these claims—till such time these cannot be presented as proofs at all. They are actually just further claims of Deputy Sahib that need supporting arguments.

Besides these claims, Deputy Sahib has not presented anything at all to prove the Divinity of the Messiah.

I have already explained that in John 10, the Messiah(as) in being called the ‘Son of God’, considered himself clearly to be just like others [mentioned in the Bible], and did not ascribe any special characteristic to himself in this regard, although this was the very question of those Jews who had declared him to be guilty of blasphemy. And this was indeed the reason they had held him to be guilty of blasphemy; that if you are indeed the Son of God, then present proof of your Divinity, but he gave no such proof at all.

It is a pity, why Deputy Sahib does not understand; was it at all possible that the question should be something and the answer something else? Had the Messiah(as) actually considered himself to be the Son of Allah, he would certainly have presented these very same prophecies that Deputy Sahib is now presenting. And since he did not present these, we come to know that that was not his claim. If he presented them at some other occasion or countered this repeated objection of the Jews at some other place, that he was really God or the Son of God and these prophecies apply to his person, and he proved his Divinity by his actions so that he would have been freed from this disputed prophecy, please let us know where this took place. You can now in no way keep this occasion hidden, as all your other interpretations are flimsy.

The truth is indeed that the words makhsus, [sanctified] and bheija-giya [one who is sent] have been used generally in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. This is one debt you owe us, which I do not see you discharging, that while you have mentioned the Divinity of the Messiah(as), you have failed to provide any logical argument in support of his Divinity, nor were you able to establish any distinction regarding him in comparison to other gods. You should tell us what argument there could be—logically speaking—that while Raja Ramchandra, Raja Krishna or Buddha cannot be God, but the Messiah(as) can be God? And it would be appropriate if, from now on, you do not continue to repeatedly mention those prophecies that have been turned down by the manner in which the Messiah(as) himself spoke, and which were not employed by the Messiah(as) at the time of need. Every reasonable person understands—without any doubt—that when he was declared a blasphemer and was attacked, and he began to be stoned, he was badly in need of those prophecies to prove his Divinity, if indeed they were applicable to the Messiah(as) and bore witness to his Divinity. As he was in danger of losing his life at that moment—already having been declared a blasphemer—for what day were these essential and useful prophecies being saved? Why were they not presented? Have you ever answered this question? So what should we do with these prophecies, and with what manner of respect should we look upon them, and wherefore should we make a distinction between Jesus, the Messiah(as), and other artificial gods in the world? Allah, the Lord of Glory, states in the Noble Quran:

—(Part 10, Ruku‘ 11)1

Meaning that Allah Almighty says that: some of the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah’, and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’; that is what they say with their mouths, for which there is no proof whatsoever. They only imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved before them; that is to say, those who have declared human beings to be Gods, or the sons of God. May they perish. How they are turned away from the teaching. They have taken their priests and their monks for Providers besides Allah, and so they have taken the Messiah, son of Mary, whereas We had commanded them not to worship anyone but the One who is God, who has no partner. [Too Holy is He for what they associate with Him!] They seek to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths; but Allah refuses but to perfect His light, though the disbelievers may resent it. He, it is who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so that that religion may prevail over all religions, even though the idolaters may resent it.

Now, look in these noble verses. Allah, the Lord of Glory, states clearly that before the Christians, the Jews—that is to say, some Jews—had also declared Ezra to be the son of Allah, and not only they but some disbelievers of the earlier ages had also given the same status to their spiritual guides and leaders. So what arguments do these people have to prove that those earlier people were wrong in considering their priests to be gods while they are right? Then, the Holy Quran indicates that these were the evils that had become prevalent in the world for the reformation of which this Messenger was sent so that, with the Perfect Teaching, he may eradicate those evils. Had the Jews possessed a Perfect Teaching, they would certainly not have made their teachers and priests into gods in contravention to the Laws of the Torah. This shows that they needed a Perfect Teaching just as the Messiah(as) too had affirmed that, ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.’

Here, the Christians take the words ‘Spirit of Truth’ to mean the Holy Spirit, and do not pay attention to the fact that according to them, the Holy Spirit is God, and so, who will he hear from? Whereas the words of the prophecy are, ‘whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.’

Now, again turning back to the earlier topic, we say that Deputy Sahib was unable to present any logical argument from the Bible about the Divinity of the Messiah. However, we shall present another argument from the Noble Quran where Allah, the Lord of Glory, says:

—(Part 21, Ruku‘ 7)2

Meaning that: it is Allah Who has created you, and then He has provided for you; then, He will cause you to die and then He will bring you to life. Is there any of your so-called associate-gods, who are from among the human beings, who can do any of these things? Holy is God from the calumny that the idolaters ascribe to Him. Then Allah further states:

3

[Meaning that:] Or have they taken for partners with Allah such as are creators like God Almighty is a Creator, so that by this argument they have accepted them to be God? Say to them that the only proven fact is that Allah Almighty is the Creator of all things and He alone is Supreme over all things, Triumphant.

In keeping with this argument of the Holy Quran, I had asked Deputy Sahib that, if in the view of you gentlemen, the Messiah(as) is truly God, you should produce some evidence of his Divine attributes of Creator, etc.; for, it cannot be the case that God should come to the world denuded and bare, having left His attributes in heaven. His attributes are associated with His being and are inseparable from Him and can never be suspended. It is not at all possible that being God, He should be powerless to manifest the perfect Divine attributes. Deputy Sahib answers this by saying to me that whatever is in the heaven and the earth by way of the sun and the moon etc. and whatever things, creatures that are found, they have been created by the Messiah. The listeners can judge for themselves what the excellence and worth of this answer is. Is this an argument that has been presented by way of proof or is it another claim that has been made? Do the Hindu gentlemen not say, in exactly the same way, that Raja Ramchandra has indeed brought into being all the creatures found in the heavens and the earth? So who should settle this issue?

Then, after this, Deputy Sahib declares that Signs giving evidence of faith are limited to a certain period, whereas the Messiah(as) states in clear terms that anyone with a mustard seed grain of faith shall be able to show such and such marvels. Then, he declares in John 14:12, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.’ Now, I ask you, what is left of your belaboured interpretations? In this verse, the Messiah has, in fact, given his manifestly clear judgement and stated that one who believes in me, will acquire my colours, and shall be able to do works similar to mine; indeed, even greater.

This statement of the Messiah is absolutely correct and true, because Prophets come for this very purpose; so that people, by following them, become coloured in their colours, and become a branch of their tree, bearing the same flowers and fruits that they [the Prophets] bear. Besides, it is obvious that man is ever in need of inner satisfaction, and in every age, when darkness spreads, there is a need for Signs.

How could it be, therefore, that there should be no need whatsoever of any Signs to maintain the religion of the Messiah(as) and this belief in the Divinity of Jesus(as) that is opposed to the facts? While the other people who are deemed to be established on falsehood, and the Holy Prophet(sa) who brought the Holy Quran and is considered to be opposed to the truth—those who follow him should be manifesting Signs in accord with the intent of the Holy Quran by the favour and grace of God, but for the Christians there are no Signs in the future, for they lie in the past! If the Christians now no longer have the power to show any Signs, they should themselves ponder what their religion amounts to.

I say again, for the third time, that just as Allah, the Lord of Glory, has established three Signs of His true religion, so those are still, even now, manifestly present in Islam. Then, what is the reason that your religion has become devoid of any Signs and no Signs of truth remain in it anymore?

Then you stated that the reason why the Messiah(as) refused to show Signs on one occasion was that he had already shown them before. I say that this statement of yours is not correct. Had he already shown Signs he would have given some reference thereto. And furthermore, I also say that I have indeed shown you the Signs already. Do you not remember the paper Nur Afshan of 10 May 1888, in which—rejecting my prophecy4 with great fanfare—Messrs. Nur Afshan had written an antagonistic article against it and had included the prophecy in that publication? And, then that prophecy was fulfilled in the allocated time.

You have admitted already that a prophecy is also included among things miraculous, so we have already shown you one Sign, and it is published in Nur Afshan. Thus, if you still have an objection after this, it would be similar to the objection that the Jews made, the details of which you have already heard in the very words of the Messiah; I need not repeat it. Now, in accord with your declaration to embrace Islam I am very eager to hear from you to what extent you have embraced Islam upon having seen the fulfilment of this prophecy. As for me, I am ready any time [for this contest] in the future also; all that remains is your request and the written conditions.

And you are mistaken in your statement that having described the use of an abusive word by the Messiah, it is as if I have disrespected him. I consider the Messiah(as) a true Prophet and a venerable and beloved servant of God Almighty. That was merely a remonstrative rejoinder that was appropriate to your taste, and that accusation falls on you, not on me. (The rest, later.)