Tenth Paper

DEBATE 1 JUNE 1893 CE

PROCEEDINGS

The debate took place again today and Deputy Abdullah Atham started dictating his question at 6:08 and completed it at 7:40, this was then read out loud. After him, Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started dictating his reply at 8:01 and completed it at 9:01, which was then read out loud. Then Deputy Sahib started writing at 9:27 and completed at 10:06, which was then also read out loud.

After this, the presiders signed the respective papers and the session was adjourned.

1 JUNE 1893 CE

Statement Of

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

Yesterday, during the statement of the other party I heard two very strange declarations. One, as if I did not answer any of your issues, and second that I seemed to have conceded that the human form of Christ was devoid of the second Person of the Divinity for thirty years. If there seems to be this misunderstanding, I want to rectify these two issues at this time. For the first mistake, my answer is that after yesterday’s papers are published and available for the audience, only then the fair-minded people will see for themselves whether I did not give an answer or the other party failed to do so.

Regarding the second issue, my answer was that the special manifestation [of God] in Christ became apparent at the time when he left Jordan after being baptised, and when the voice was heard saying, ‘This is my beloved son, I am pleased with him, listen to him.’ He is the Messiah from that time onward. Thus, I consider both these pronouncements to be akin to beating the ripped drum or frazzled trumpet.

Secondly: the other party certainly did not answer my question as to how the demand of Divine justice was fulfilled, nor did he give any just consideration to it. Therefore, I will neither say anything about it nor hear anything further about it.

I will now present the rest of my questions, and the first of these questions is as follows:

1

They say, ‘Is there for us any part in the government of affairs?’ Say, ‘All government belongs to Allah.’

In the Gospels it is indeed written that privilege, which can be roughly translated as latitude, is indeed bestowed by Allah. Thus, some are given honour and respect, while others are humiliated; some are made masters and others are made servants; but nobody will have the Hellfire as their destiny nor is anybody assigned destruction. It is further written that Pharaoh was allowed to become established for this very reason, (the actual words are was made established, meaning that he was allowed to become established) so that the glory of Divine attributes may increase in him, but it is not written that man has no choice whatsoever; however, his deeds are accountable.

In short, this is the difference between the Holy Quran and the Gospels that the Holy Quran gives teachings that are contradictory to human choice whereas the Gospels do not negate choice in human actions as they relate to privileges and permissions. And although the Holy Quran mentions compulsion along with destiny, these two cannot be compatible with each other.

My third question is regarding what is written in Surah at-Tauba:

2

It is written thus in Ruku‘ 4, ‘Kill those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, including those who are the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah [tax] with their hand and acknowledge their subjection.’

Our allegation here is that this verse teaches compulsion in faith. The jihads of Moses were of a different type; no person can prove that in them, safety and security were dependent on faith. While in this verse the jihad referred to is not a defensive jihad, nor is it a jihad of revenge, nor is it a governmental affairs related jihad; in fact, it is a jihad that whosoever does not believe in these Quranic principles will be killed. This is what is called compulsion in faith. Our Respected Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Bahadur does not concede jihad of compulsion; he states that you either accept or die or live by paying the Jizyah. But regarding the third condition concerning the Jizyah, our question to him is why have the words [from among] been used for the People of the Book. The word or ‘from’ is excessive and ‘People of the Book’ have an exception to this rule. Then, is this not wishful thinking that this third condition should also be declared as commonly applicable? And then this gentleman also states that the verse 3 refutes all objections relating to compulsion in religion. But if we can show that the Quran also contains the following command that O Muslims! When some well off person approaches you and greets you with the greeting of peace, you should not say to him that you are deceitful and not really a Muslim, so that you can rob him. God will give you much wealth in other ways. So, is it not then use of force to rob a person by way of deceptive slander? And is this not against the policy which hinders the progress of religion? On this very note, there are a few other sides to this matter that can be presented from the opposing party, and we shall deal with them when they are raised.

Thirdly: A glimpse of the teachings of the Quran that has been presented above, shows that there is not even slight obscurity that could give us any deception concerning the miracles. Thus His Excellency, Muhammad, absolutely refuses to be known as a miracle-maker.

Some Muslims maintain that in the verse 4 a great miracle on the eloquence and articulacy of the Quran has been stated, but there is no mention in the verse regarding what the example is being sought, and there is not a word in the Quran regarding the claim for eloquence and fluency anywhere. Perhaps what is meant by this Quranic claim is that the Quran is a summary of the Books of the previous Prophets which could not have been made by any creature other than God; therefore, it—the Quran—too is without equal; that is to say, it contains the claim to containing holy teachings but not of eloquence and fluency.

In fact, contrary to being eloquent and articulate, it is also written in the Quran that it has been made easy in Arabic for the Arab people, yet whatever eloquence and fluency is absolutely new becomes in need of being explained and instead of being easy, does not remain easy at all. And it should also be remembered that according to the Quran, His Excellency, Muhammad, was not absolutely illiterate, but the Quran actually says that whoever is not from among the People of the Book is illiterate. And in actuality, it seems that His Excellency, Muhammad, did not have knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. Likewise, it should also be remembered that the word ‘Book’ in Quranic terminology normally means only a ‘revealed Book’ and not any worldly book.

Fourthly: you did not fully answer one of my questions yesterday. I had wished to know if the birth of Jesus was indeed a miracle or not? In other words, did he have a father or not, did the angel—specifically Gabriel—bring glad tidings to Mary or did he not? And what you asserted regarding your vision that you had conversed with His Excellency, Muhammad, in our opinion, the proof of this is nothing more than the proof concerning the Night of Ascension of your master.

Moreover, we ask why you place the Unitarians and Roman Catholics as judges over us? They call themselves Christians, but we believe them to be wrong Christians. When our Archbishop Deputy wanted to assess how far the circle of Christianity was, he included Muslims among Christians, and he used arguments from the Quran, yet we cannot accept them as true Christians. (The rest, later.)

1 JUNE 1893

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

First of all, Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib says that he has not confessed that the second partner of the Trinity—meaning, Jesus the Messiah—was devoid of the manifestation of Allah in him for thirty years. In reply to this, it is sufficient to place before you your written words dated 31 May 1893, and these are:

‘Sixthly—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.’

Now, those given to reflection can understand whether this text can have any other meaning than that Prophet Jesus was not a manifestation of Allah prior to the descending of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon him in the form of a dove; he actually became the manifestation of Allah after this event.

Therefore, now that Deputy Sahib has completely rejected the manifestation of Allah without any exception, can there be a meaning other than this that Prophet Jesus was just a mere man before the Holy Spirit descended on him in the shape of a dove? Since the words ‘manifestation of Allah’ do not permit any division or analysis, and from his statement, it certainly cannot be concluded that Jesus was, at first, the manifestation of Allah in a hidden form, and then sometime later he became so openly. He is saying clearly that he became the manifestation of Allah after the descent of the Holy Spirit. So this second statement is not an explanation of the first statement; in fact, it is the opposite of it. And to deny after first accepting is not the practice of just people. Without a doubt, he acknowledged that the Messiah was completely devoid and destitute of any manifestation of Allah for thirty years. Because I had asked whether he was the manifestation of Allah before the descent of the Holy Spirit or after that, and he conclusively chose to say after, and openly admitted that he became the manifestation of Allah after [the said event].

Now, there is no need for us to continue discussing this matter. When this issue becomes open to the public, then they will understand themselves whether Deputy Sahib first admitted and then denied his answer, or whether it is something else. And now he also admits that he will not discuss this issue any further and that he has said whatever was needed. It is sad that he has thus not adopted the way of the truthful. It seems that the comments and criticisms of others had forced him to think that his statement might prove Jesus to be human, and not have been the manifestation of Allah for thirty years. Due to the likely difficulty that might occur, he has given this cunning explanation today, which is actually not an explanation but a denial in very clear and conspicuous terms.

Then Deputy Sahib states that his question has not been answered; that is ‘How was the demand of justice met?’

I had clearly directed to be written in my statement yesterday that this claim of yours that mercy and justice being side by side and concurrently necessary for God, is a wrong ideology. I reiterate that by virtue of the testimony of the law of nature, the attribute of mercy occupies the foremost stage, and appears to be everlasting and universal. However, the reality of justice comes into force only after the descent of the Divine Law and after the promise; in other words, before the promise, justice is nothing at all, and it is the Mastery of God that prevails.

If justice has some standing before a promise is made, then Deputy Sahib should attend to our yesterday’s question and answer why thousands of children, birds, and insects are killed without any reason. So why does this take place if the everlasting attribute of justice is active? And according to your rules why has justice not been administered for them?

The truth is that nothing has any right against God Almighty; man cannot even enter into Heaven by his own right; this status emerges out of a promise. Once the Book of God is revealed and within it are promises and warnings, then Allah Almighty deals with every righteous or evil person in accord with His promises and warnings. And given that justice on its own is nothing, and in fact, the whole foundation is based upon His promises and warnings; and since nothing has any kind of right against God Almighty, then why should justice be maintained?

The definition of justice demands that first the parties be ascribed rights. However, the creatures have no right against God who created them from nothingness; otherwise, a dog—for instance—could ask why did You not make me a bull and the bull could ask why did You not make me a human being? And because these animals are suffering a form of Hell in this very world, if justice were made incumbent on God, then such a serious allegation would be raised that you would be unable to answer in any way.

Then, you objected to compulsion and destiny and stated that compulsion is proven from the Quran. In reply to this, it should be known that perhaps you may not have seen these verses which clearly argue in favour of endeavour and choice. The verses are as follows:

—(Part 27, Ruku‘ 3)5

That, man will have only that which he strives for; what he has attempted; in other words, deeds are necessary for gaining rewards.

Then again He states:

—(Part 22, Ruku‘ 5)6

Meaning that if Allah were to punish people for what they do of their own choice, he would not leave any creature that can move on the surface of the earth.

Then again He states:

—(Part 3, Ruku‘ 8)7

[Meaning,] It shall have the reward it earns, and it shall get the punishment it incurs.

Then again He states:

—(Part 24, Ruku‘ 6)8

[Meaning,] Whoso does a good deed, it is for his own soul, and whoso does evil, it will only go against it.

Then again He states:

—(Part 5, Ruku‘ 6)9

Meaning that, then how is it that when an affliction befalls them because of what their hands have sent on before them.

Now see that from all these verses it is proven exactly that man does indeed possess a choice in his actions.

And at this occasion the verse it that Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib has presented: 10 And by this, the purpose of Deputy Sahib is to say that this verse proves compulsion in Islam. This is his misunderstanding. Actually, the Arabic word [amr] means command and governance; and this was the thought of some of those people who said that if only we had some sort of influence on the governing of affairs, we would have employed such tactics as would have prevented the suffering that was faced at the Battle of Uhud. In reply to this Allah Almighty states:

11

That is to say, ‘All affairs are in the control of Allah’. You should remain obedient to the Holy Prophet. Now, we should look at what this verse has to do with destiny. The question of some people only was that if our advice and consultation were to be taken then we would counsel against this, but Allah Almighty forbade them stating that this matter was not based on [ijtihad—human reasoning], but rather this was a commandment of Allah Almighty.

Now, after this it should be made clear that [taqdir] only means to establish a measure; as Allah, the Lord of Glory, states:

—(Part 18, Ruku‘ 16)12

Meaning that He created everything, and has ordained for it its proper measure. How is it proven from this that man is deprived of his freedoms? In fact, his freedoms have been included in the same measure that God Almighty ordained for man and his temperament, and this is what is given the name of Divine decree. And therein it is ordained that man can use his powers up to a certain limit. It is a great misunderstanding to think that the word taqdir or destiny should be understood in such a way as to mean that man is forced to be deprived of his God-given faculties.

Here the example of a timepiece is very appropriate; for, whatever period the watchmaker decrees for it, it cannot function beyond that limit. The same example can be used for man, that he cannot accomplish anything beyond the powers that he has been conferred, and he cannot live beyond the duration of life that he has been granted.

And this question which was raised that in the Holy Quran God has by way of force destined some people to be Hell-bound and made Satan rule over them for no reason, is an utterly shameful mistake. Allah, the Lord of Glory, states in the Holy Quran:

13

Meaning that O Satan, thou shalt have no power over My servants.

Now, look how Allah Almighty makes manifest the freedom given to humanity. For an equitable person who has regard for justice in his heart, this verse alone would be sufficient, but from the Gospel of Matthew, quite the opposite is seen to be established. Since it is proven beyond any doubt from the Gospel of Matthew that Satan took Jesus away to be tried, this shows that Satan had a sort of authority that he was capable of exercising so much coercion on a holy Prophet as to take him from place to place. Satan even went to the extent of showing him so much disrespect as to say to him to prostrate before him, and then he took him to the top of a great high mountain and showed him all the great kingdoms of the world and their majesty and glory.

See Matthew 4:8. Now look at this with attention and see how Satan was able to manifest Divine glory that firstly, by his own will—and that too against the will of Jesus the Messiah—he was able to take him to the top of a mountain, and it was in his powers—like God—to show him the kingdoms of the world.

Now, it should be clear that this ideology which seems to have become firmly established in your imagination that the Holy Quran has created some people for Hell for no apparent reason, or sets a seal on the hearts without any cause, simply proves that you never look at the Holy Quran with the pure eye of justice. Look what Allah, the Lord of Glory, states:

—(Part 23, Ruku‘ 14)14

Meaning that while addressing Satan, He says that I will fill Hell with thee and with those who follow thee.

See how this verse clearly manifests that it is not the wish of Allah Almighty to throw people in Hell by force and for no reason whatsoever, but rather only those people will be made to enter Hell who become deserving of it due to their own evil deeds.

Then again He states:

15

Meaning that many does He adjudge by it to be erring and many by it does He guide, but He adjudges those to be erring who commit such deeds as lead to misguidance and walk along the paths of transgression. In other words, man receives the consequences of his actions from God Almighty, just like when a person opens a window facing the sun. Then, its natural and innate consequence is that the sunlight and its rays will fall onto his face, but when he shuts this window, then through his own action, he creates darkness for himself.

Now, since God Almighty is the Ultimate Cause of all causes, He attributes these two actions to Himself, but in His Holy Word, He has repeatedly explained that whatever misguidance impacts the heart of anyone, it is the result of the bad deeds committed by that very person. Allah Almighty does not inflict any cruelty upon such a one, as He states:

—(Part 28, Ruku‘ 9)16

[Meaning,] So when they became deviated, so did Almighty Allah cause their hearts to become deviated.

Then, at another place, He states:

17

[Meaning,] In their hearts was a disease, and Allah increased this disease. Meaning that by putting them through a trial, He manifested this reality.

Then again He states:

18

Meaning that because of their disbelief God Almighty set a seal upon their hearts.

Nevertheless, if this allegation of compulsion can be raised at all, it will be against your Holy Books; see Exodus 4:21: And the Lord said unto Moses, I will harden Pharaoh’s heart. So when it became hardened, would the consequence be Hell or something else? Look at Exodus 7:3, Proverbs 16:4, then Exodus 10:3, Deuteronomy 29:4: ‘Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.’ Now witness what a clear example this is of compulsion. Then look at Psalms 148:6: ‘He hath made a decree which shall not pass.’ Romans 9:1819: ‘Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus.’ Now, from all of these verses, your allegation has reverted to you.

After this, you raised an allegation on jihad but this allegation is completely against the procedure of this debate, and this very thing was also written in your conditions that questions would be asked in an ordered manner. What was the purpose of this other than that once a question is answered, only then should another question be raised so that the discussion should not become meaningless.

Now, there is still some answer remaining from your first question regarding justice. And the answer is that your self-made law has been broken by the Messiah himself because he based the criterion of salvation on promises exactly in accord with our statements and he presented the Divine commandments, the reward for which has been presented in the form of promises. As he states, ‘Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.’ Now, do please tell us whether these promises that were made to those that mourn, and the merciful, and pure-hearted—will they be fulfilled or not? If they will be fulfilled, then there is not the least mention of any atonement here. And if they are not going to be fulfilled, then an unfulfilled promise is the consequence, and to suggest such a thing about the directions of God Almighty is a grave sin.

In short, I have completely refuted your issue of mercy without recompense from the perfect teachings of the Holy Quran, the law of nature and your own Holy Books. Now, if you do not abandon your stubbornness against a matter that has been proven, then the fair-minded people can decide for themselves. All the teachings of God Almighty are in accord with the laws of nature, and according to Dr. Henry Martyn Clark, the Unity which the Quran teaches is so clear and pure and consonant with human nature, that even children can understand it, but [as regards] this—your issue of Trinity—set aside any talk of children, even philosophers of today hold it contrary to reason.

So how can that teaching be deemed worthy of rejection which is in accord with the nature of man and the law of nature, and so crystal clear that even children accept it, and which Unity is all that remains when all the superfluous and redundant elements are taken out of all the religions? And the answer to your question about jihad will be given on another occasion. However, you have gone against the rules of this debate by asking question upon question. The audience will see this for themselves.

1 JUNE 1893 CE 09:27

By

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

Your saying that according to me Jesus Christ stayed devoid of Divinity for thirty years is merely wishful thinking. I only stated that he had not come to occupy the office of the Messiahship till then. And this is true; everything else you have mentioned is superfluous. To be devoid of limitlessness is not permissible for anyone let alone that Jesus Christ should have been devoid of it. The relationship that the second Person of the Trinity has with humanity is through Christ. Although the second Person of the Trinity was with the Divinity, he was not the Messiah until he reached the age of thirty.

What does the manifestation of Allah mean and for what purpose have these words been used? In my opinion, it means the place of the manifestation of Allah for the sake of the office of the Messiah. So then why do you argue over this matter? The Holy Spirit descended to testify that this is the Son of God and God said I am pleased with him, not so that He could come and enter into him.

2) The answer to your second issue is that you can say whatever you like, but you have not answered my question of how the demand of justice has been fulfilled. If your statement means that the demand of justice is nothing, then we cannot agree with you regarding this primary truth.

3) You puzzle me when you say that compulsion is not proven from the Quran. You do not pay attention to the words in that verse in which it is written: They say, ‘Do we have any hand in the government of affairs?’ And in reply to this it is said: ‘Say, all affairs are in the hand of Allah.’ And I can give many Quranic verses regarding this case, but there is no need.

Then, your belief that is written here that good and evil come from Allah the Almighty, this inference is chosen from the Quran. The commentary you have written about the verses from the Gospels is not correct. I have stated that evil is permitted by God; in other words, for permissions and privileges, that is the limit of it, within which there is no mention of Heaven or Hell. Scarcity and excess of convenience and ease within the world are mentioned. So why do you say that they are similar to the Quran? What I say is that the Quran teaches both coercion and destiny, but both these cannot coexist in harmony with each other, together. Instead, they negate each other just as saying that you have a choice and you do not have a choice are clear opposites.

4) Regarding the trial of our Lord Christ, where Satan tested humanity, I fail to understand what you mean; nothing is apparent at all. What do coercion and destiny have to do with this?

I do not understand why your example of the sun is appropriate here when you say that God Almighty, who is the First Cause, attributes the actions of the secondary causes to Himself as well. I do not understand why He does it. What need is there for this? The actions of the secondary cause can be attributed to the First Cause when there is some share of the First Cause in them also.

The First Cause made a person capable of free will. Free will in itself cannot be held accountable until something results from it. It is, therefore, in reality not bad either but rather good and if the primary Cause were to interfere in it, then it would negate the act of granting free will. This is in itself far from His purpose of bestowing free will.

We have explained why the heart of Pharaoh was made hard. We have already explained this, that he was not stopped from committing evil, and God lifted His hand of grace from him; thus, his heart was made hard. Thereafter, God did nothing in this, but did not permit to stop it. We call this ‘permission’. And this is the metaphorical expression that they were not given eyes to see or ears to hear, which means that while having eyes and ears, they could not see or hear, but God Almighty did not stop them. Similarly, metaphorical language is used when a father says to his child angrily, ‘May you die!’ This does not mean that he desires that he should die, but in fact, he is upset with his actions.

5) I saw that the question was short and there was enough time for two, so I asked two questions. You can answer whenever you wish; we will not hold it against you that you did not answer the question immediately. And then when you will desire an answer, we will repeat it also.

6) You ask where is the mention of atonement in the promises that Christ has mentioned in Matthew 5; I am very much surprised by this. Am I to understand that all subjects must be gathered together in one and the same place? If it is not mentioned here, then it is mentioned in many other places, and we have given these references many times. It was your responsibility to prove that atonement is refuted in them. Why are you placing your burden of providing proof on others?

7) It is good if you have refuted the issue of mercy without recompense from the law of nature, Quranic verses, and Holy Books because when these matters are published, everybody will be able to see it for himself and judge it. Repeating the arguments that we have given regarding this would be like churning water.

8) Until this issue of the Trinity that we have presented with arguments is refuted with sound arguments, we will not give it any attention. You have made it your habit of repeating an issue, but failing to give any attention to its evidence.

9)I feel disappointed that you do not reply to my questions nor do you pay any attention to my replies. Till today the question remains unanswered whether you believe that Gabriel came to Mary or not, as mentioned in the Gospels, and whether the birth of Christ was a miracle or not? But you have paid no attention to these matters.