Ninth Paper

DEBATE 31 MAY 1893

PROCEEDINGS

Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started writing at 6:06 and completed it at 7:06 and this was read out loud after having been compared.

Mr. Abdullah Atham started [his paper] at 7:52 and completed it at 8:52 which was then read out loud. Mirza Sahib then started at 9:26 and finished at 10:26, which was then read out loud. After this, the Manager of the National Press requested permission to publish the debate. Permission was granted but on the condition that it should be published in the exact same manner as the Manager of the Riyad-e-Hind Press was publishing it. In other words, it should publish them without any additions or deletions from the papers of both parties and in order. After this, the presiders signed the papers and the session ended.

31 MAY 1893

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

Today I will answer in some detail the question that Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib asked yesterday that mercy without recompense is not at all permissible. Let it be clear that regarding mercy without recompense, it is the belief of Christians that God Almighty is both Just and Merciful and the attribute of justice demands that a sinner should not be let off without any punishment, while the attribute of mercy demands that a person should be saved from punishment, but because the attribute requiring justice prevents mercy from happening that is why mercy without recompense is not permissible.

However, Muslims believe that mercy is a general attribute which holds the highest stature and has precedence over the attribute of justice, just like God Almighty states:

—(Part 9, Ruku‘ 9)1

From this verse we learn that mercy is general and all-encompassing, while wrath—in other words, the attribute of justice—comes into operation only after some particular occurrence, meaning that this attribute develops its right to appear after a Law of God is transgressed, and for this it is necessary that there first be a Divine Law present, through the breaking of which sin comes into being and then this attribute makes its appearance and fulfils its requirements.

But so long as there is no law present or no sin born in disobedience to a law—for example, there should be a person who is incapable of understanding the Divine Law, like a child or an insane person or some like of animals—till such time this attribute does not make its appearance. Nevertheless, by virtue of His being the Master, He may do as He wills because He has a right over all His creation.

So it has been proven from this study that justice has no relation whatsoever with mercy; mercy is indeed God’s eternal and foremost ranking attribute. Just as the Christians themselves hold to this belief that God is Love, it is not written anywhere that God is Wrath—meaning, He is Just—and Wrath is similar to Just because the wrath of God is not like the wrath of humans, that manifests itself without any reason, or on trivial annoyance, but instead God manifests this attribute at the precise and relevant time of justice.

Now, the second question is: What are the injunctions regarding him who breaches the Divine Law? The answer is that action will be taken according to the conditions of this law; mercy has no connection with this. In other words, the issue of mercy without recompense has no relevance here because the philosophy of sin is that it comes into being due to the breaking of a Divine Law. Therefore, it is necessary first to have a law but the law will be present in a certain epoch, which is why God’s mercy cannot go hand in hand with His justice, but it comes into effect when the law has been established and conveyed, and then its rules are breached and transgressed. So the Maker of Law has this general authority that He can assign whatever punishment He likes for the breaking of any law, and then also to make certain conditions and rules and limitations, as He wishes, to provide for a pardon from those punishments.

So now we see that this problem of mercy without any recompense has become a completely different and clear issue. However, we still have to see the Book of which religion has set forth the punishments, or the means of forgiveness, in the most suitable, best, and just manner. But to see this characteristic one must keep the aspect of mercy very much in mind because as we have just proven, mercy is the real, universal, and foremost attribute. Therefore, the religion whose manner of punishment and prescribed way of forgiveness is closest to mercy, that religion will be deemed the best and most suitable because in the principles and rules of punishment, to exercise harshness beyond all limits and to place such severe restrictions as are themselves against mercy, is very far from the holy attributes of God Almighty. Now, the just people can see which path the Holy Quran has presented for forgiveness and which path the Gospels have presented to attain forgiveness.

Therefore, let it be clear that the teachings which the Holy Quran prescribes for someone to attain forgiveness contain no misplaced severity and employ no principle that would lead to cruelty. It states the following pure and natural guidance, that whoever becomes guilty of some crime by breaching the Divine Law, then he has open to him the path of sincerely repenting by believing in the rectitude and truthfulness of these laws, and starting afresh following these rules with zeal and passion, so much so that he would not be afraid of even laying down his life in this path. And yes, it is also written that intercessorship is beneficial for the offenders, but with the permission of God Almighty. And good deeds also are a means of warding off sins, and increase of faith, and love and strong emotional attachment [with God] burns away all remnants of sin like fire.

However, the principle of the Christian gentlemen from the very outset is that to attain forgiveness of a sin, it is necessary and required that a sinless person must be crucified. Now the fair-minded people can judge for themselves.

It should also be remembered that for the judgement of every dispute and quarrel, the natural law of God Almighty exists. This natural law clearly testifies that God’s mercy without recompense has been in operation since eternity. Can anyone deny the extent to which God has shown His mercy by the creation of the earth and the heavens and the many different types of favours with which He has blessed mankind?

Just as Allah, the Lord of Glory, states:

—(Part 13, Ruku‘ 7)2

Meaning that if you try to count the favours of Allah, you will never be able to number them. Similarly, His Mercifulness—meaning, to reward a good deed—is clearly proven from the law of nature because whoever treads on the paths of righteousness benefits from the consequences. Similarly, His Mastery is proven from natural law. As I explained yesterday, tens of millions of animals are sacrificed for the benefit of man; besides this, the Torah proves that in the storm of Prophet Noah, all animals were destroyed except only a few. Had they committed any sin? Certainly not! This was simply a requirement of His Mastery.

And the statement that sin is born of law is clearly established by this verse:

—(Part 1, Ruku‘ 4)3

Meaning, those people who disbelieve after the arrival of our Book and treat Our Signs as lies, these shall be cast into the Fire.

And the proof that God Almighty forgives sins through repentance is proven from this verse:

—(Part 24, Ruku‘ 6)4

And the Graciousness, Mercifulness, and Mastery of God Almighty are proven from these verses:

5

I will now give the remaining answers to Deputy Abdullah Atham herein below.

He said the soul of Jesus was created and his body was also created, and the relationship of God Almighty with Jesus was there because God is present everywhere. I cannot understand this statement of Deputy Sahib because if Prophet Jesus was just a mere human being, and there was no uniqueness in him, and his connection with God Almighty was simply that God Almighty is present everywhere and yet despite this, you give emphasis to the statement that he was a manifestation of Allah. I wonder how he could be a manifestation of Allah? What is certain through this argument is that everything is a manifestation of Allah.

Then, another question that I have is whether his becoming a manifestation of Allah happened before the Holy Spirit descended on him or after that? If it happened afterward, then what was his uniqueness? Then, you say that we do not believe the being of God to be a substance so how can there be any weight in him? My answer to this is that it is proven that the Son—that is to say, Jesus—was a being with a body because it is written that the Revealed Word was made flesh and the Holy Spirit was also given a body as it is written that it descended in the form of a dove and your God also has a body because He wrestled with Jacob and He was also seen, and it is also said that the Son went and sat on His right-hand side.

Then you speak about multiplicity in Unity, but I do not understand how a real multitude and real unity can come together in one place? And to trust in just one of them is not in accord with your faith. I want to ask you here also, as to whether Jesus, the Messiah, who has been declared to be the manifestation of Allah, was a manifestation of Allah from the very beginning till the very end and was this manifestation found in him permanently or did it appear by chance now and then? If it was permanent, then you will have to prove that he also held the Divine attributes of Omniscient and Omnipotent, etc. at all times because the Holy Gospel rejects this. I need not state this again and again.

Here I also have to ask another question. You state that there were not two souls in Jesus, that he possessed just one and that it was the human soul that he possessed, in which there was not even an iota of Divinity.

And yes, just as God Almighty is present everywhere and as it is written that His spirit was present in Joseph(as), so similarly, was it present with Jesus(as)? So how, in his own essence, could Jesus be taken to be the second Person of the Trinity? It is also worth asking you gentlemen whether in your view Jesus, being the second Person of the Trinity, is periodic or permanent?

Then you state that He—meaning Allah Almighty—says not to retaliate, but I am surprised why you refrain from retaliation even though the reprisal laws in the Torah are among your established beliefs. And I still have not received from you the answer to this question that since you hold the three persons of the Trinity to be equal in possessing perfect attributes, then—when there is one Perfect Being possessing all perfect attributes, and there is no need for anything beyond that—why is it necessary that there should be other beings?

Then, when these perfect entities combine or come together, why is there nothing by way of result that ought to manifest itself necessarily as a consequence of this coming together? In other words, what is the reason that despite each of the three beings possessing all the perfect attributes when they come together, why is there no increase in strength or power? Or, if it has increased and, for example, if before it was perfect, then after the combination it should have become more perfectly perfect, or—for example—if before it was Omnipotent then after combining it should have become the Most Omnipotent, or if it was first called the Creator then after combining it should have become the Great Creator; so you should provide proof of this.

You have unnecessarily diverted the topic to solid bodies. I had only presented an example, and by the grace of God, I also proved it from your very Books. All of your statements are disappointing because according to our conditions you have neither presented the exact text of the Gospels nor have you given any logical argument from them. Please tell us where the words mercy without recompense have been mentioned in the Gospels and where and when did Prophet Jesus himself give the meaning or expression to this idea? Any amount of sorrow expressed by those who are just on this breaking of the agreement would be too little. You also failed to give a satisfactory reply to my question yesterday regarding the wrath of God without recompense. What was meant was that the attribute of ‘Master’ that Almighty Allah possesses functions independently of any link to sins. For example, look at the children of mankind who are affected with many difficult and dangerous illnesses, and some are born in poor families and poor houses so that from the moment they start teething they suffer from starvation and malnutrition, and when they grow up, they are made to serve as someone’s stableman. On the other hand, a child is born in a king’s palace, and from the moment he is born he is served by servants and handmaids, while helpers carry him in their laps, and when he grows up, he sits upon the throne. What is the reason for this? Is Mastery the reason or are you a believer in the concept of reincarnation? So if Mastery is proven, and that no person has any right against God Almighty, then why is there so much excitement shown on this subject?

Then, you say that the intercessions of Moses were not real intercessions, that there was a precondition attached, of being judged on the Day of Judgement even though God Almighty temporarily forgave them and said that for the sake of Moses your sins are forgiven. However, they were not forgiven and were destined to be cast into the Fire out of petulance by God. Now, what evidence do you have for this? Please present these proofs but with references from the Torah where God says that though I have forgiven this disobedience today, however, I will judge them tomorrow. Here, your exegesis and interpretations will not suffice. If you are truthful, then show the verses of the Torah because this very matter is plainly, clearly written in many places of the Torah—and we will provide these references afterwards—that God had forgiven the House of Israel at the time of some of their disobedience due to the intercession of Moses. In fact, the very words of forgiveness are present in Numbers 12:13 and 14:19, Deuteronomy 9:19–22, and Exodus 8:8.

Then you say that it is not against the law of nature for Jesus to be crucified for the sins of others, that a person can pay the debt of another person with his wealth. This is a fascinating example that you have given! What was actually asked was whether some other person could be punished for the crimes of a criminal? Is there any example of this in the world? You have served as an Extra-Assistant, and you know that the British laws are compiled after a great deal of deliberation and research and due regard to the requirements of justice. Have you ever seen anything in the Indian Penal Code that Y should be crucified for the sins of X? (The rest, later.)

31 MAY 1893 CE

Statement Of

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

Sir, your saying that mercy occupies the first and superior status is opposed manifestly to 7:53 because this clearly directs that no attribute is lower than another and that each has its own full stature. The gentleman has also very rightly stated that until a law is not breached, punishment is not applicable and the sin is not placed on him, that is why children who are not aware of the nature of sin and the congenitally insane cannot sin. In fact, if somebody does not know the nature of a sin and he perpetrates the act, the attribute of justice will not arbitrate it, and that action will not be regarded as a sin.

If God were to act based on His being the Master in such a way as to breach the nature of His other attributes, then the whole structure of His Holiness is turned upside down. It is, therefore, not correct that because of His Mastery He can do as He wishes so much so as even to commit a transgression.

Moreover, the association of justice with mercy is not such that that which is mercy cannot be said to be just and that which is just cannot be mercy, but both these attributes belong to the One Holy God. And it is not possible that the Word of God should say that God is wrongfully Wrathful, but it is also written that He is the fire that consumes the sinners—Deuteronomy 4:24.

The law comes into being as a result of the action of a lawmaker, and it is indeed true that an action comes into being after its doer, but the justice that makes the law—whose work is the making of laws—is an eternal and permanent attribute and does not come into being temporarily nor can it disappear temporarily.

And it is also not correct to say that justice has been executed when the damage remains and the sinner is freed. It should be made clear that the justice of this world is not true justice. In fact, it is the name of a mere system, and its purpose is not only that punishment should be perfectly dispensed, but that crimes should continue to decline. Can the murdered person be brought to life by executing the murderer? What does it matter to the murdered if the murderer is executed? This is not the system of justice of God. It is, instead, that till the damage of sin is not returned, freedom from the compensating punishment should also not be granted.

Second—This, that you say is the way of attaining forgiveness according to the Holy Quran. First of all, you saying this is not permissible because it is not possible that both being the Word of the One God could teach two such diametrically opposed ways; that doing good deeds could pay off the debt. Although it is indeed our responsibility that we do good deeds, but it is very strange to think that partial payment should be considered as full payment and, thus, the total debt declared fulfilled.

For instance, a person owes 100 rupees, and after paying 25 rupees, he says that the loan is cleared. No sensible person will accept that a part is equal to the whole. Therefore, you should not mention the issue of good deeds until you can prove that through good deeds, one can clear all the debt; that is to say, one can become totally free of sin. Repentance and faith are indeed the outer gates of salvation—in other words, without these two, one cannot gain admittance into salvation—but they cannot be the door to the inner essence. If we kill a fly and then repent a hundred times, will it make that fly come back to life? And regarding faith, if we believe that God is Omnipotent and can give it life again, then this happening is somewhat far from the realm of possibility. Love and strong emotional attachment are part of the responsibilities of life; their mention is included in the doing of good deeds. No further mention is necessary.

Third—You are clearly mistaken when you say that mercy without recompense is a Divine Law of God Almighty that has constantly been in force since the very beginning. It is engraved in our nature as an ultimate truth that whoever causes loss to another being, he must then compensate for his loss. Humanity, in every era, must observe the obedience of God, and if one transgresses and commits a sin then he shall have to pay compensation for that, and the only suitable recompense is that he remains incarcerated in punishment.

Fourth—I also explained yesterday that sufferings are of three types. Firstly, that which is called punishment, which means to recompense for damages and its limit is that till the damages are not paid the offender should not be released. The second is the type that serves to perfect one’s appreciation of ease, by which I mean that one desirous of knowing about something outside his ken cannot attain to it fully without knowing its opposite. For example, a congenitally blind person does not know what whiteness is, but he also does not know what darkness is despite being in front of it all the time. Similarly, if a man was sent to Paradise and he never had any painful experience, he will not recognise or appreciate the significance of Paradise. The third type of pain is that of a test or a trial; that is to say, making a person capable of taking action to choose from among potential actions. Having been placed between two things similar but uniquely opposite in their outcome, accepting one cannot happen without pain and suffering. If these three types are right, then what right do you have to say that the pain that animals go through is by way of punishment?

Fifth—Let me answer your failing to understand what the uniqueness of God’s manifestation in Jesus is while everything is a manifestation of God. The uniqueness is that by virtue of Jesus, Allah Almighty completed the task of atonement. God Almighty is absolutely free from taking upon Himself pain and suffering while a created being cannot remain alive upon taking on the burden of everyone. So in such a situation, God Almighty did the following, that the one pure, innocent man took upon himself the whole burden, and had him carry it for the second Person of the Divinity. Thus, suffering found shelter because, on this occasion, the punishment of the evil spirit came to face the Eternal and Everlasting second Person of the Trinity.

Where else can this uniqueness of the manifestation of God be found! You must show it to us. And even if you do not accept our claim to this uniqueness of Jesus but till you reject the Bible, you have no right to object that it is the exclusive miracle of Jesus to be born and be killed and be raised again to life and ascend to the heavens.

And please also explain if these hold any significance or not, whereas it is written that salvation cannot be achieved without the shedding of blood—Hebrews 9:22, Leviticus 17:11—and that all the sacrifices in the Torah suggest this as well. And it is also written that for salvation there is no other name given under heaven, Acts 4:12. Please give us explanations of all these matters and do not simply brush them aside.

Sixth—This that you ask, Sir, whether the manifestation of Allah in Jesus happened after the descent of the Holy Spirit or even after that. Our answer to this is speculative; it happened at the time when the Holy Spirit descended but the Divine Word makes mention of no specific time. What importance does it have if he became the manifestation of Allah before or after? Since you have not elaborated on this point, I cannot explain this matter any further.

Seventh—Although you have not very correctly mentioned the three Persons of the Godhead becoming endowed with a body, you have asserted that upon being endowed with a body they acquire weight as you have said, that if, for example, each weighed three units, then upon being combined, their total weight would be nine units.

Eighth—In the teachings of Unity in Trinity, we do not mean that simultaneously there is Unity as well as Trinity. Rather, we believe that in one instance there is a unity and in another instance there is Trinity. When I suggested that these three qualities have that same type of relationship as in how incomparability issuing forth from limitlessness is in no need of time and space, but the description of these two attributes are separate, and both are similar. The same is the situation of the three Persons of the Godhead, that one exists in his own right and the other two are inseparable from it. To understand this, you should also ponder on this statement that it is not possible for a single person to simultaneously seek revenge and peace, but if a sinner is forgiven, then both these go hand in hand. And this is not possible for just one being to carry out and therefore, at the least, two beings are needed.

Time is short, and I wish to explain a little about incomparability. Absolutely incomparable is that thing which eliminates all possibility of comparison, and this can only be done by a being who has the power to eliminate all possibility of there being anything comparable. Now, God Almighty is Absolutely Incomparable; therefore, it is essential that He should be Limitless as well, and this Incomparability should emanate from the Limitlessness without any distinction of time and space.

We have even more logical examples of multiplicity in unity but showing only its possibility; however, to show its occurrence is the work of Divine Scriptures. And we have given the references to these verses before, one of those verses being: ‘Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil’ (Genesis 3:22). (The rest, later.)

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

First of all, I must say with regret that despite my reminding Deputy Abdullah Atham again and again that every single claim and every single statement should be presented from the Gospels alone, and that logical arguments should be shown only from the Gospels; yet on every occasion he neglected this condition, and his statements are read aloud profusely and freely as if he is compiling a new set of Gospels.

Now, we should ponder on what answers he has given to my questions. First of all, I had asked by way of a condition, where, in the Gospels is the phrase ‘mercy without recompense’ found and then I had asked where is the logical explanation and detail of it provided by Jesus. Yet again, you deliberately refused to answer this question. That is why I believe that you do not debate as a follower of the Gospels; instead, you express your ideas as an intellectual thinker.

You begin to criticize my statement that mercy is foremost in its appearance, and occupies the highest stature, without even trying to understand it. There is indeed no doubt that all the perfect attributes of God Almighty are eternal and everlasting. However, they are manifested in this world on their proper occasions, and as and when required, they are delayed and hastened. Who cannot understand that mercy ranks foremost in making its manifestation, because it is in no need of a Book having been revealed nor does its manifestation depend on the fact that people should have become intelligent and wise. In fact, just as His mercy is bestowed upon intelligent people, it is bestowed on children and the insane and all kinds of animals.

However, the time for the manifestation of justice—even though the attribute of justice is there from the beginning—is after the Divine Law is established and fully conveyed to the creation of Allah and its truth and its origin from Allah is proven to the people. Then, after that, whoever transgresses and breaches these laws will be seized.

This, in fact, was my question, that your question of mercy without any recompense would sit well only when the manifestation of mercy and the manifestation of justice should both happen in the same age, there always being a mutual necessity between the two at every place. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the sphere of mercy is extremely vast and broad, and it has been manifesting its blessings from the beginning, since the inception of this world. So what relation does justice have with mercy and how can they impede each other?

From your explanation of mercy without recompense, I can, in summary, understand nothing other than that justice requires punishing and mercy requires forgiveness and pardoning. However, when the manifestations of mercy and justice are not equal and of the same grade and it is proven that the mercy of God Almighty does not require anyone’s righteousness, but that His Graciousness has—since the beginning—always been manifested upon righteous and sinful people, then how can it be proven that God Almighty does not wish for the sinful to taste an iota of His mercy?

Is the law of nature before us not proclaiming out loud over and over again that sin, heedlessness, and guilt are no barrier before the mercy of God, but if they were, then it would be difficult for man to survive even for a single instant? So, now that it is proven that this system of mercy is found and proven throughout this world without any condition of righteousness or innocence or virtuousness and that the law of nature is clearly proving this, then how can one refuse to believe in it? And how can a man believe in this new doctrine that is against human nature that God’s mercy is linked to the righteousness of men? Allah, the Lord of Glory, has presented many verses of the Holy Quran by way of example, from which it becomes proven how the sphere of His mercy is extremely vast and benefiting all His creation. For example, Allah, the Lord of Glory, states:

6

Then again He states:

7

Then again He states:

8

Then again He states:

9

Through all these verses, God Almighty has provided clear proof from the law of nature that His mercy is unconditional, that there is no condition relating to anyone’s righteousness involved. However, the issue of crimes begins once the Divine Law is promulgated—as you accept—and it is only then that the time for the manifestation of the attribute of justice arrives. Although justice is an eternal attribute, however, if you look closely into this matter, then you will realise that—depending on the occurrence of events—the manifestation of attributes may be delayed or hastened as the need arises.

Thus, since sin began after the Divine Book had been sent into the world and it had also established its truth through miracles and signs, where does mercy without recompense remain; because the system of mercy was in operation from the beginning without any condition as to the righteousness of anyone? Further, the sins that the Holy Book of God Almighty lays out are contingent upon the fulfilment of certain conditions; in other words, these injunctions will become applicable upon those to whom these laws have been fully conveyed, providing the recipients are not insane or crazy.

Moreover, you criticize Mastery and suggest that if the Mastery of God is accepted, then the system of this whole universe would be turned upside down. You should ponder over the fact that this entire universe is operating within the parameters established for it, so what do you mean that it may be turned upside down? For example, the person who, by contravening the law of God Almighty, becomes deserving of some punishment in accordance with His promise—although God Almighty being Master can forgive—it is on account of His promise that such a person cannot escape the punishment until that person makes himself deserving of forgiveness by following the ways that the Book of God has appointed. This is because the promise has been made, but if, for example, the Divine Book has not yet been revealed or has not reached somebody, or if, for example, the sin is committed by a child or an insane person, then whatever treatment is meted out to such a one, it will be in accordance with the Mastery of God.

If this is not so, then a very strong objection arises as to why little children suffer horrendous pains before ultimately dying, and why millions upon millions of animals are killed. We have no other explanation besides He being the Master and doing as He pleases.

Then, sticking adamantly to your first statement, you say that the forgiving of sins of someone in the world through someone’s intercession is just an administrative issue. It is sadly perplexing how you became a legislator at this time and why you started abrogating verses of the Torah. If it was only an administrative matter and in reality, the sins were not forgiven, then you should give proof of this from the Torah. The Torah clearly states that sins were forgiven many times through the intercession of Prophet Moses. And nearly all the books of the Bible agree with us that God Almighty is Ever-Merciful and Most-Forgiving; see Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 3:13; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Psalms 4 32:5; Proverbs 28:13. Similarly in Luke 17:3—4; Luke 15:4–24; Luke 10:25, 28; Mark 16:16; Genesis 6:7, 9; Book of Job 1:1, Ezekiel 14:14; Daniel 6:4; Psalms 130:3, 4, 7; Psalms 78:38; Micah 7:18.

How much more should I write? You should open and read these Books for yourself and see that all of them prove the same fact that there is no need whatsoever for mercy without recompense, and that God Almighty has always been showing His mercy through many different means.

Then you go on to say that repentance and faith are the exterior doors; in other words, even though one may repent and have faith, he still needs to be atoned. This is just your claim, which is against all the Books I have referred to. However, this much is true that just as Allah the Lord of Glory, has never decreased or diminished His mercy even though man commits many sins and faults, similarly, when the moment of accepting repentance comes, God Almighty always keeps His mercy in sight and through His grace He considers their paltry offerings as enough and accepts them.

If we interpret this practice of God as His grace and say that salvation is gained through the sheer grace of God, then this is indeed very appropriate, because just as a poor and humble man gives a flower as a gift to a king, and the king, out of his endless favours, and knowing his own stature, grants the poor man such a reward which is thousands—nay, millions—of times better than the flower, then this act is not beyond imagination. God Almighty also treats His creation in the same way. Out of His grace and according to His Glorious Divine Eminence, He accepts even the lowliest and humble beggar. We see this too in the acceptance of prayers, that that is also dependent upon the grace of God, and the Bible is full of such statements.

Then you state that although the Messiah had no supernatural quality and was just a mere human being just like other humans, and that God Almighty had the same relationship with him as He had with others, but his specialty and uniqueness is proved from the fact that atonement happened through him, and that he ascended to the heavens, and because he was born without a father. This statement of yours I find to be very surprising; is it your habit to go on making claims? Since when do we believe that Jesus came back to life? Albeit yes, it is proven from many places in the Holy Quran that Jesus died, but if by being brought back to life is meant spiritual life, then in this sense all Prophets are alive. Who is dead? Is it not written in the Gospels that the disciples saw Prophet Moses and Elijah and said, ‘O teacher, if you want we can raise a separate tent for you and a separate tent for Moses and one for Elijah?’ So if Moses was dead how did they see him? Can the dead also come and be present? Then, in this same Gospel, it is written that when Lazarus died, he was taken to sit in the lap of Abraham. If Prophet Abraham was dead then was he taken to sit in the lap of a dead person?

Let it be clear that we do not have any belief whatsoever in this so-called uniqueness of Prophet Jesus. In fact, our belief, according to our Holy Scripture and traditions, is that our Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is alive in the highest and strongest form and no Prophet is alive to that lofty degree of life like that of the Holy Prophet(sa).

Thus, I have seen and conversed with the Holy Prophet many times while in the state of consciousness and asked him questions regarding many different issues. If Jesus is alive then has somebody from among you ever seen him in a state of consciousness?

Then, your saying that Prophet Jesus was not the manifestation of Allah before the Holy Spirit descended on him; this is, in fact, an acknowledgment of defeat from you. You have accepted that Prophet Jesus was just a mere man for thirty years, and there was no sign of him being the manifestation of God. Then, after thirty years, when the Holy Spirit descended on him in the shape of a dove, he became the manifestation of Allah.

Now, at this moment, I am so very grateful that today we have won a great victory because you have yourself conceded and acknowledged this fact that for thirty years Prophet Jesus was totally deprived of being a manifestation of Allah and was a mere man. Now, after this, the claim that he became the manifestation of Allah after the dove descended, requires the attention of the audience, because, if the descending of the Holy Spirit makes a man God and the manifestation of Allah, then Prophet Yahya, Zachariah, Joseph, Joshua the son of Nun, and all the disciples would be declared Gods.

Then, you ask, Can it mean that being endowed with a body means having weight? This is a strange question. Can you bring forth such a body which is regarded as a body but is entirely free from all physical characteristics? Nonetheless, thank you, for you have at least conceded that all three of your Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have bodies.

Then, you state that there is no contradiction between multiplicity in Unity and Unity—that both can exist in the same place; that is to say, in relation to different directions in space. Your answer is bizarre. The question asked was which of the two do you believe to be real. And you did not give any answer to this.

Then, you state by way of a claim that under the heavens there is no other name by which salvation can be attained. You also claim that Jesus was free from sin while the other Prophets are not, but it is peculiar that Jesus did not say this himself, that in the estimation of God Almighty, I am free of every blame and every fault. And this statement of Jesus that who from among you can place any blame on me, this is a different matter altogether which means that as against you and by virtue of your accusations, I cannot be held to be a criminal or a liar. However, at the threshold of God Almighty, he clearly admits that he is guilty as we can see from Matthew 19 where he refused to be called good.

Then you ask why the Holy Quran and the Gospels, both being the Divine Scriptures of God, give two separate paths to salvation? The rebuttal to this is, the path opposed to the Holy Quran that is mentioned with reference to the Gospel is simply your baseless imagination. Up until now, you have not provided any proof that this is the statement of Jesus; indeed, there is not present in the Gospel specifically and in words, the word of ‘trinity’ nor is there any mention of ‘mercy without recompense’. The references which I have just mentioned are sufficient to prove the veracity of the Holy Quran, whereas there are many verses from the Holy Quran, Old Testament, and New Testament that unanimously stand opposed to your Doctrine of Atonement.

So, at the very least, you should have admitted that you erred in understanding this doctrine because a person may occasionally be misled when arriving at the meanings of a statement, as you suggested your [Christian] brethren the Roman Catholics and Unitarians, have been misled in understanding the Gospels, whereas both these sects believe you to be misled and in the wrong. Hence, while there are differences and misunderstandings in your very own house, how is it right for you to abandon the understanding of an issue that is agreed upon, and adopt something wherein you have differences and misunderstandings? (The rest, later.)