THE SECOND PART

[Eighth Paper]

[DEBATE] 30 MAY 1893

PROCEEDINGS

The meeting was held again today. Dr. Henry Martyn Clark returned to his original designated seat as President. Mr. Abdullah Atham opened the debate; he started dictating his question at 6:09 and completed it at 6:20,1 which was then read out loud. Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib then started dictating his answer at 6:27 and completed it at 7:27. Whilst Mirza Sahib was dictating his reply, the President for the Christians tried to stop him without the agreement of the President for the Muslims and told his scribes to stop taking the dictation. However, with the permission of the Muslim President, Mirza Sahib continued to dictate his answer and his scribes continued to write as well. The President for the Christians wished that Mirza Sahib would stop writing and then they could table a motion because in their opinion Mirza Sahib was writing an answer that was against the conditions. But when, in their opinion, Mirza Sahib started writing in accordance with the conditions, then they told their scribes to continue writing as well. It was the opinion of the President for the Muslims that until Mirza Sahib completes his essay, no action should be taken to stop him, because, in his opinion, Mirza Sahib had done nothing against the conditions. Consequently, Mirza Sahib continued dictating his reply and completed it within his allocated time. When they were comparing the papers, the Christian clerks then completed that part of the essay that they had left because of the orders from their President. Now, another matter arose that the Christian President and audience believed that the answer of Mirza Sahib was against the conditions because firstly, this week the Christians had the right to ask questions to the Muslims regarding the religion of Muhammad, not that the Muslims seek answers from the Christians. Secondly, at present, Abdullah Atham has asked the question about Mercy without Recompense, whilst Mirza Sahib is asking about the Divinity of the Messiah.

The President for the Muslims declared that the essay of Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib is not against any conditions. In fact, it is exactly in accordance with the rules. Mirza Sahib also stated that his answer does not go against any condition because the question of Mercy without any Recompense is founded upon the Divinity of the Messiah, and we can only fully refute the issue of Mercy without Recompense once this foundation has been uprooted. How can the foundation be said not to be relevant? In fact, it should be said that the issue of Mercy without any Recompense is based on perversity confounded. The Christians continued to insist that the essay of Mirza Sahib was against the conditions, whilst the Muslims were trying to prove that it was, in fact, in accordance with the conditions. Reverend Imad-ud-Din stood up and stated clearly that it is not permissible for the two presiders to prevent any speaker from answering any question, but upon the question from the Christian President, however, he stated also that the reply of Mirza Sahib was against the conditions. Mr. Abdullah Atham also said that it was against the conditions to some extent, but that it should be pardoned. The Muslim President stated that this essay is not against any condition at all and, therefore, we do not seek your pardon. This disagreement continued for a while. During this time Deputy Abdullah Atham said that only if his Chairman would permit him to reply to Mirza Sahib word by word, then he will do so; otherwise, he will not. But the Muslim President informed Deputy [Abdullah Atham] that there is no need for you to seek permission from the Presidents to reply, you have permission to reply in any form or manner, but the Christian President stopped him and said that he refused to give him permission and that if he continued then the President will give in his resignation as president because that was against the conditions. Again, this argument continued for a while. Finally, it was agreed that in the future no debater would be stopped from answering and they would have the right to answer in any manner they pleased.

After this, Deputy Abdullah Atham started dictating his answer at 8:35 and completed it by 9:50. The written documents were then compared and read out loud. Finally, the two presiders added their signatures to the written record. The session then closed because there was not enough time for Mirza Sahib to complete his answer.

30 MAY 1893

Question by

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

My first question is on Mercy without Recompense, which means that mercy is shown without any regard to the demands of justice. In this regard, the first question is whether the attributes of justice and truth can be freely manifested; that is to say, this restriction no longer applies to them that they not be manifested, like if justice was done or not; truth prevailed or not. The objection in this, if it were so, is, who then would be the guardian of God’s Holiness? And are mercy and goodness bound to be manifested? And the objection in this is that if they are so required to be manifested then will this not be by way of a loan advanced that must be repaid?

My second question is that so long as whatever of sin remains, then in what way can the sinner attain salvation? Now, there are three means of salvation mentioned in the Holy Quran. Firstly, that if you save yourself from the major sins, then the minor sins will be forgiven out of mercy. Secondly, if the weight of the bad deeds will not be greater than that of the good deeds, then you will be eligible for mercy. Thirdly, that justice, in comparison to mercy, becomes relieved from its duty; in other words, mercy prevails over justice. In the first two instances, the principle that has been laid down is that partial payment suffices for the whole, while in the third, the principle that has been shown is that the manifestation of justice is not essential but that mercy must perforce come into play. In both these principles mentioned above, is anything stated against the obvious or not? Because recompense for justice was not done and this is Mercy without Recompense which renders two Divine attributes deficient; that is to say, Justice and Truth.

We wait for the gentleman’s reply to this, and the answer should explain if both these principles are manifestly true or not or if these are truths or not, but the recompense is paid, and the attributes remain established. There is no need for me to state anything further in this regard.

I hope that just as these, my questions, are brief, the answers too shall similarly be brief.

30 MAY 1893

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

2

The question that Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib has asked regarding the matter of Mercy without Recompense is based in reality on accepting the Divinity of the Messiah. Therefore, for clarity, it is very important that mention is made briefly of this, because, if the Divinity of the Messiah is proven, then there is no need for any lengthy disputation at all. However, if it is proven on the basis of decisive arguments that he was a mere human being and his Divinity is proven false, then until Deputy Sahib does not establish the Divinity of Jesus, it would be contrary to the nature of this debate to go in any other direction.

In order to prove the Divinity of the Messiah, Deputy Sahib said in his previous statements that while other human beings have just one soul, the Messiah had two souls: One—that of a human, and one—that of God Almighty; as if his body had two souls governing the one body. The matter that cannot be understood, however, is how it is possible for one body to have two souls? And if it was just the one soul of God Almighty then in what meaning can the Messiah(as) be considered a human, or rather a perfect human being? Was he just considered a human because of his physical body?

And I have already stated that the human body is constantly decaying and, in a few years the physical body changes completely. And no intelligent person can call someone a man just by virtue of the body, so long as the soul has not entered into it. If the Messiah had, in reality, a human soul and that soul was governing the body, and it was that very soul that underwent crucifixion and left the body upon crucifixion whilst the Messiah gave his life crying Eli, Eli [My God, my God!]; then where and how did the spirit of God come into play and consideration? We cannot understand this, nor can any intelligent person.

If in reality the Messiah was also a human with respect to his soul, then he cannot be God; and if he was God with respect to his soul, then he cannot be a human being. Besides, the Christians believe that the Father is Perfect; the Son is Perfect as is the Holy Spirit. Thus, since all three are Perfect, then by combining the three, they must become Supremely Perfect. Because, for example, if three items are supposed to be three kilograms in weight each, then the total weight of all three will become nine kilograms. I asked Deputy Sahib for the answer to this objection before as well, but it is sad to say that I still have not received an answer and it is crystal clear that this is such a forceful objection that it completely refutes the Divinity of the Messiah.

These are the very objections that the Holy Quran itself presents and it was upon this basis that I had laid down the condition that some logical argument should be presented in support of the Divinity of the Messiah. But alas, no attention was paid to this condition at all. I had also mentioned that all the prophecies that you have presented to prove the Divinity of the Messiah(as) are mere claims, not arguments. Most importantly, until an illogical matter is not shown to be logical in some way, no benefit can be gained from scriptural references at all. For example, if a donkey is standing in front of our very eyes and a thousand books are presented wherein it is written that it is a human being [and not a donkey], even then how will that donkey become a human being?

Apart from this, those scriptural references are utterly useless. Those from whose books they are taken do not accept them, and in your own house there is discord, and the Messiah(as) says that the Jews are sitting on the Seat of Authority of Moses and you should heed what they say. It is sad to say that their interpretations are not accepted, and the excuse is given that the Jews are transgressors and adulterers, whereas the Gospels say that their statements and their interpretations should be accorded the highest degree of acceptance. And we are told arrogantly that look the books are present, read them! Nevertheless, justice demands that every truth be evaluated from all angles. We will also examine the statements of the Jews, and we will cast a glance at your internal differences too. Furthermore, if you wish that books be perused, we will examine them as well, but under the condition that the meanings derived by the Jews are heard, just as the interpretations you derive are heard. We will also examine their dictionaries and your dictionaries and the most suitable and worthiest will be accepted. And by the Jews, we mean those very Jews who passed away hundreds of years before the Messiah. In short, it is necessary for a seeker of truth to evaluate all angles and not just one.

Moreover, this question that is raised of Mercy without Recompense—one aspect of it I have already mentioned, but another is that we should look into the law of nature of God Almighty to learn how His practice manifests in the application of the attributes of mercy and wrath such that wrath appears against mercy.

If Mercy without Recompense is not allowed then anger or wrath without any recompense should also not be allowed. Now a very difficult objection arises, if Deputy Sahib can manage to solve this problem, then the audience will be able to benefit from this philosophy of his.

And the case of wrath without recompense is that we see in the world, with our very own eyes, that thousands of insects and worms and thousands of animals, without any crime or proof of any fault, are killed, annihilated and slaughtered; so much so that in just one drop of water we drink hundreds of germs. If we look carefully, then we will see that all of our social affairs are functioning based on God Almighty’s wrath without recompense, so much so that even the clothes made of silk that man uses, involve the killing of countless living creatures. And the meat of the finest animals that is consumed daily by the Christian gentlemen, we are unable to discover in lieu of what sin all this is taking place.

Now that it has been proven that Allah, the Lord of Glory, shows wrath without recompense and we see no compensation being meted out, so in this situation showing mercy without recompense seems most worthy and befitting from a moral standpoint. The Messiah(as) also counselled the forgiving of sins, that you should forgive the faults of those who trespass against you. If this act of forgiving sins is against the attributes of Allah Almighty, Lord of Glory, then why would man receive such teachings? Indeed, the Messiah says that I tell you not seven times, but up to seventy times seven3; in other words, go on forgiving sins up to this degree.

Now look how when man is taught, he is told to go on forgiving those who sin against him without limit and ask for no recompense, but God Almighty says that I will certainly not forgive without receiving some recompense—what kind of teaching can this be?

Indeed, the Messiah says at one place that make your morals similar to the morals of God; He causes the sun and the moon to rise equally upon the sinners and the saints and showers His Mercy upon every wrongdoer and innocent one. If these are the ways of God then how is it possible for the Messiah to give such teachings as are against the morals of God; in other words, if the morals of God Almighty are that no one can be free till he is punished, why did Jesus advise others to practice forgiveness? Also, when we look carefully, we notice that sinners have always been forgiven by the intercession of the pious; see Numbers 14:19, Numbers 12:13, Deuteronomy 9:19, Exodus 8:8.

Then, apart from this, we ask that on the basis of the division that you have done of sin, which appears to be of three types: Innate; rights due to God; and rights due to the creatures of God; so you can understand what may be the cause of rights of men not being discharged, and you should, therefore, also see that the concept of innate sin breaks this rule of yours. According to your Torah, there are many parts of it from which your concept of mercy without recompense is proven to be false. If you believe the Torah to be true and from Allah then the intercession that Moses did through which the sins of great sinners were forgiven would be deemed as useless and pointless. You should know that the solution which the Holy Quran provides for this issue is the most appropriate which can have no objection against it; for, it states that there are just two types of rights: the rights due to God and the rights due to man. The rights of man have been made subject to the following conditions: That so long as the victim is not granted his right or does not forego his right, he will retain title to his right. And regarding the rights of God it has been stated that just as a person adopts the path of sin out of audacity and arrogance, similarly, when he turns towards God with repentance and seeks forgiveness and joins His obedient followers with true sincerity and becomes ready to endure all sorts of hardships and discomforts, then God Almighty forgives his shortcomings because of his sincerity; for, just like when he was about to commit sin under the impulse of sensual desires, so similarly he has undertaken all manner of hardships upon himself to free himself from sin.

Thus, this is the recompense of accepting hardships that he has endured under Divine obedience, and we cannot name this as mercy without any recompense. Has man not done any work? Has he been forgiven without making any effort? In fact, he has made a perfect sacrifice by offering true repentance and taken upon himself every type of pain and suffering even unto death, and the punishment that would otherwise have been meted out to him, he has himself—of his own volition—imposed that punishment upon himself.

So to call this mercy without recompense is nothing but a serious mistake. However, the mercy without recompense which Deputy [Abdullah Atham] has presented, which requires that X commits a sin and Y pays the price for it, as we can see from the following references: Ezekiel 18:1, then Ezekiel 18:20, then Samuel 2:3, Revelation 20:12, Ezekiel 19:27–304—is indeed a most detestable cruelty and there surely could be no greater cruelty in the world than that. Unless, of course, it is the case that God suddenly remembered this remedy for sins after hundreds upon hundreds of years of contemplation.

It is evident that a Divine arrangement that is in accord with human nature should have been in place from the very beginning. Ever since man appeared in the world the foundation for sin was laid from then on. Then, what is this that sin began to spread poison from that point on, but it was some 4,000 years later that God Almighty remembered to provide a remedy for this sin? No—Sir!—this is nothing but a sheer fabrication.

The fact is that just as God Almighty had placed the capacity to sin within the nature of man, so did He similarly place the cure for that sin within his nature, as He Himself says:

—(Part 1, Ruku‘ 13)5

That is to say, whoever submits his entire being to God Almighty, and then devotes himself to the doing of good works, shall have the reward of these from Allah Almighty. And such people shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

Now, look how this rule to repent and turn to God Almighty and to devote one’s life in this very path is such a straight path to achieve forgiveness of sins that it is not limited to any particular age or period. Ever since man came into this transitory life, he has had this law with him. As he possesses a condition in his nature to be attracted towards sin, he has the second condition in him to feel repentant and become prepared to devote his life for his Lord; thus, the poison and the antidote are both within him—not that the poison should be found within him, but the antidote is to be sought for somewhere in the jungles. Apart from this, I would like to ask that if it is true that believing in the atonement of Jesus causes one to acquire a certain change within himself, then why has there been no proof presented of this? I have repeatedly affirmed and I affirm it yet again that that special change, that special purity, that special salvation, that special faith, and that special converse with God can only be attained through Islam and that the Signs of having acquired true faith become manifest after embracing Islam.

If this atonement is true and you have achieved salvation through this atonement, attaining true faith, then why are the Signs of this true faith—which Jesus himself described—not found within you? And to say that those Signs are not to be found in the future but were manifested exclusively in the past is to articulate a pointless assertion. If you call yourselves the faithful, then the Signs that have been set for you to show as a consequence, must needs be found in you, for the statement of Jesus cannot be false. But if you look closely, you will find that those Signs are so profusely found in Islam that you cannot even dare to come close in their demonstration. These were the Signs concerning which I had said to you that if you cannot match them, then observe and examine them in the light of the teachings of the Holy Quran, and if they appear true to you, then accept them like all just people; but what reply did you give other than mockery and derision?

You brought forth three lame, crippled, etc. persons and stood them in front of me, requesting me to make them whole, whereas to make such whole is a Sign that the Christians are supposed to show. For us are those Signs that the Holy Quran has stated and we have nowhere been told that you will be able to show Signs of Divine Power by your own will; indeed, we have been only told to supplicate humbly before God, then whatever sort of Sign He desires will be shown. So is this not injustice on your part that you requested something from me that should have been requested from you, and then labelled it as a victory? I am still ready to show these Signs according to the conditions that our Book has prescribed, and you should also compete with me to show those Signs as prescribed by your Book; then will truth and falsehood manifest itself. To laugh and mock is not the etiquette of the just; upon me is incumbent that which is made incumbent by the Holy Quran and upon you is incumbent that which the Gospel makes incumbent. Please repeatedly read the adage of the grain of a mustard seed and then decide for yourself.

After your reply, I shall explain the remaining part of the question that you asked me on the issue of mercy without any recompense. However, it is necessary for you to first present this question based demonstrably upon the Gospels in accord with the stipulated conditions, supported by evidence, because it is not right for you to put forward something which the Gospels do not put forward themselves.

In my opinion, the Gospels alone are sufficient to negate this question, and the sayings of Jesus are adequate for its eradication. Can you please give the final answer in such a manner that the references from the Gospels are included so that the audience can know what the Gospels say and whether the Gospels are the cause of this question or if the Gospels deny or denounce it?

30 MAY 1893

From

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

I have some objections to your style of answering.

You have replied that the concept of mercy without recompense depends wholly on proof of the Divinity of Jesus, the proof of which you have not provided. I state from my side, ‘What proof do you desire from me?’

I have already stated that we do not regard that Jesus who was a creature and a physical being to be Allah, but rather we say he was a manifestation of Allah; and for this, there are two facts that need to be proven: 1. Is this possible; and 2. Did it actually occur?

We prove the possibility with logical arguments and the occurrence from the Word of God. So it should be made clear to us what more it is that you want. Regarding the possibility of this, we had stated, ‘Does God not have the power to answer from this pillar that is made of earth and bricks? What can prevent God from doing this; that is to say, what attribute of God is contradicted by this?’ This was your responsibility to show us, and it still has not been done. Just like the example of a pillar that I have presented, similarly, it is possible for Him to manifest Himself among His creations. And regarding its occurrence, I have already presented some verses. If you do not accept the Book to be revealed then that is another matter, and if we have given any wrong references then you can hold it against us, but to say that these writings are from a Revealed Book and then simply ignore the references by saying they are nothing, is not right.

Second—You enquired whether the Messiah had two souls or just one, and how is it possible for one being to have two souls?

My answer to this is that in the ‘wholly man’ Jesus there was ‘wholly one soul’, but God Almighty, in His being, is limitless and is present everywhere inside and outside. And the meaning of manifestation of God is simply, that He should manifest Himself in some particular place in some way; so where in this is there any indication for the need of a second soul to be present in the body of Jesus and where is there any indication from this of him being devoid of God? This is a logical matter that does not need any Book, why do you hesitate to understand this issue?

Third—The statement you make regarding the pull of weight as it relates to the Absolutely Subtle Being; it appears from it that you ascribe density to God and we do not believe the Being of God to be dense, so how could there be weight associated with God? For weight has to do with pull [of gravity] and pull is related to density. You have not understood our argument about ‘multiplicity in Unity’. We do not divide the essence of the Godhead, nor do we consider the Persons of the Godhead to be a mix of one another. The case of our multiplicity in Unity is like unto the manner in which the attribute of Incomparability issues forth from Limitlessness and its issuing forth creates no impact in space or time, but in a certain sense they both remain one, and in another sense they become many; in the same way the first Person in the three Persons of the Godhead exists in Himself, and the other two Persons apart from it are inseparable from it.

How can you separate the weight of the three Persons of the Godhead intothreedifferent places? What relation does the Absolutely Subtle Being have to weight? We call that being the Absolutely Subtle Being who is perfectly the opposite of that which is dense and not just some being that is relatively more subtle than another; for example, water when compared to dirt, or air as compared to water, or fire as compared to air. These are all examples of one being relatively subtler than the other, yet they are all dense things.

You declare the statements from the Word of God to be mere claims and ask for arguments by way of proof for them. From this, it seems that you are either wavering regarding belief in the Word of God or do not believe in it at all. Once this is settled, then we will reply to this also.

Fourth—The argument which you gave for mercy without recompense, is that it is the practice of God that just as He shows mercy without any recompense, similarly He shows His wrath without any recompense. Thus, many innocent animals are killed; some die for the sustenance of others and some for other reasons. The answer to all these complaints lies in the suffering, and in my opinion, sufferings are of three kinds: Firstly, that which is by way of punishment; secondly, that which serves to perfect one’s appreciation of ease; and thirdly, that which comes as a test. Think how wrong you are when you conclude from the sufferings of beasts that this is wrath without any recompense or any apparent reason. You have not only included three different sufferings in one punishment but also you stated that anger and mercy could also be shown without any reason. If we accept this, then the Divinity of God will become the darkness of atheism.

Fifth—Lord Jesus did certainly say that you should continue to forgive the sins which are committed against you and do not retaliate, but the Gospels also say not to take any vengeance because God says that vengeance is My work.

And although there may be many different types of sin, the true sin is that which goes against God. God says not to retaliate and that if it is necessary, then He will certainly take vengeance. So, what is against the teachings of Atonement in this? The one against whom sin is committed has not appointed everybody the avenger and judge of these sins.

Sixth—The court of justice in this world is not the true court of justice; it is just the name of a mere administrative system, because it does not make any recompense but causes crimes to decline steadily. Similarly, worldly intercession is not the name of real intercession, but it is the name of some respite of time because God has full power to stop and eliminate the sinner in this very world. However, at the request of His beloveds, He grants them respite to seek forgiveness. We have answered the issue of the intercessors who have no authoritative role. Nevertheless, with the permission of God, man can be granted respite time so that he may seek forgiveness. According to us, there are only two types of responsibilities, but there is really only one type, as Prophet David said, I have sinned against You alone. Therefore, the sins regarding the rights of mankind have come in this, but what you refer to as innate sin—perhaps what you mean by this is ‘inherited sin’—we mean by inherited sin that by Adam falling into sin, the trials of mankind became hardest still so that pain developed in the body and death became fearful. In this manner, this is regarded as the sin of Adam; otherwise, as you referred to Prophet Ezekiel, it is true that whichever soul sins will die, the progeny does not taste the bitterness of the grapes which their forefathers ate.

Seventh—The plan that you find disgusting, that one should commit a sin and another should suffer the punishment, the answer to it is that even in the world, the debt of one can be discharged by another through the use of his wealth.

But yes, a sinner cannot bear the weight of the sin of another because he is not free from his sins and one who is already in debt cannot become a guarantor for the debt of another person. So wherefrom is this disgust regarding the atonement offered by Jesus who was not a sinner and was rich with the treasure of salvation which he had created by his atonement?

Eighth—From this example, God Almighty has shown us that trials of efforts which ended with one mistake and were not given respite for forgiveness, were postponed due to the atonement of Christ; and instead, tests of faith were established with more time to seek forgiveness. Therefore, even those who are accepted by God Almighty are not acquitted from the tests of faith in this life. But the end is near and when that day comes man will see complete salvation. For the present, he just experiences the tranquillity that a person feels who is waiting for crown and throne upon fulfilment of a promise made by a truthful one.

You stated that you should be shown such a person who has gained salvation; it seems as though you consider salvation to be like a clod of earth that can be seen by the naked eye. This is not the reality of tranquillity; it is actually as the parable says, ‘a new bridegroom cannot fully explain the pleasure of the first night but holds it very dear.’

Ninth—As for your constant insistence that we should show miracles as required by the verses of the Gospels, we have repeatedly shown the true explanations of those verses. If you continue to repeat this question and cannot show our explanations to be incorrect and flawed, then all I can say is that the fair-minded persons will see clearly in front of whose door justice is being denied. Now our question is just where we left it and that is mercy without recompense is not permissible at all.