Eleventh Paper

DEBATE 2 JUNE 1893 CE

PROCEEDINGS

Today Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started dictating his answer at 6:09 and completed it by 7:09; this was then read out loud. Deputy Abdullah Atham followed and started dictating his answer at 7:40 and completed it by 8:40. That was then read out loud. Mirza Sahib then started writing his reply at 9:01 and finished it by 10:01. That was then read out loud. After this, the two presiders signed the respective papers of both parties and the session was adjourned.

3 JUNE1 1893; TIME 6:10

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib states: ‘To be devoid of limitlessness is not permissible for anyone let alone that Jesus Christ should have been devoid of it’; meaning that Jesus, the Messiah, was a manifestation of Allah even before the descent of the Holy Spirit because, in general terms, all of creation is said to be the manifestation of Allah.

In reply, I say that your admission is still the very same; that the Messiah became the manifestation of Allah specifically after the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and prior to this he was an ordinary manifestation just like the others.

Then, after this Deputy Sahib makes mention of the three persons of the Godhead and does not realise that this mention by him is without any evidence as he gives no logical argument for it.

As a matter of fact, it is vital for every prophetic dispensation that there be three elements in it and it is wishful thinking on the part of you gentlemen to name them the three persons of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit descended on the Messiah just as it has been descending on Prophets from the beginning. And we have given proof of this, what is so novel in this?

Then, you state that it is also first written in the Holy Quran that, ‘All affairs are in the hand of Allah.’ I say that although this is true, and Allah, the Exalted, states in the Holy Quran:

—[Part] 122

[Meaning,] And it is indeed to God Almighty that every affair returns. However, to derive from this the conclusion that this proves that man is compelled thereby is a misunderstanding. As it stands, God Almighty has also stated in the Holy Quran that I send down rain and create thunder and lightning, and grow crops, but to conclude from this that God Almighty denies the presence of natural causes that bring about rain and create thunder and lightning is completely senseless, because these stages are themselves specifically mentioned to point out that they come into being through natural causes. So in truth, the reason for God Almighty to make such statements like rains happen by My command and that it is by My command that crops grow and thunder and lightning and fruits are created etc. etc., as well as every matter is in My power and is done with My command—all this is affirmed not to prove that the system of this world is absolutely and directly enforced; rather, it is to articulate His greatness and to point to Him being the Cause of all causes and the Provider of the means for all causes, because the true object of the teachings of the Holy Quran is to spread the pure Unity of God in the world and to obliterate every form of idolatry that was spreading and because at the time when the Holy Quran was revealed, such an array of divergent forms of idolatrous beliefs were spreading throughout the Arabian peninsula that some attributed rains to stars and some held—like the atheists—that the cause of coming into being of all things was limited to simply physical means. And some believing in two gods attributed their difficult decree and destiny to be from Ahriman. This is why it was obligatory upon the Book of God Almighty—for which purpose it was revealed—that it should eradicate all such ideas and make manifest that the true Cause of all causes and the Provider of the means for all causes is indeed God. And there were also some who, believing that matter and souls were eternal, considered the idea of God Almighty being the Cause of all causes to be a weak and flawed concept.

Thus, these words of the Holy Quran that everything comes into being by My very command were used to establish the absolute Unity of God. To conclude from such verses that man is compelled is [to explain a statement with which the reciter is not satisfied]. And by observing God Almighty’s law of nature, it is also proven that that freedom and lack of compulsion which Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib is proclaiming is not found in the world; that in fact, many kinds of constraints and compulsions are evident and palpable. For example, there are some whose memories are not so good and perforce cannot remember things beyond the capacity of their weak memory; there are others whose understanding is poor, and they perforce cannot deduce the right conclusion.

Some have very small heads like those who are called doulay shah ka chuha3 and they are unable to understand anything. Further ahead in limitations are some insane people, and man’s own powers have been kept within certain limits beyond which he cannot make any use of them. This is also a type of constraint and coercion.

Then Deputy Sahib states that it is a belief in Islam that goodness and evil both come from Allah, the Exalted. It is very sad how Deputy Sahib has deviated from the correct meanings. Let it be clear that this does not mean that God Almighty creates evil as evil because Allah, the Exalted, clearly states:

4

Meaning that O Satan, who causes evil to spread, thou shalt have no power over My servants.

In fact, this statement means that the causes of everything—be they good or evil—have been created by God Almighty. For example, if the ingredients with which wine is made are not available, then how could the drunkards make wine and drink it? But if you must object, then first raise it on this verse: ‘I make peace, and create evil’ Isaiah 45:7.

Then, moving forward, Deputy Sahib states, the summary of which is as follows: ‘The Torah has no command as such that God forced someone to go into Hell.’ Verily, the rebuttal to this is that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and you believe in this—so was the consequence of this hard-heartedness Hell or was Heaven his lot?

Now, look at what your Lord says in Proverbs: ‘The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil’ 16:35. Now, look at how this falls upon you like a confessionary judgement that the evildoers have been created for Hell because that is indeed the day of evil!

Then you state that even though the Holy Quran gives teachings of free will, it teaches compulsion as well, yet these two are contradictory to each other. In reply to this I have already written that you are mixing up the objectives—wherever you feel there is a teaching of coercion, what is actually intended is a refutation of false religions and to declare that the source of every grace is God Almighty.

And you state that when Satan led away the Messiah, where is there coercion in this? The reply is that verily light was made to submit to darkness; light naturally tends to stay away from darkness.

Then, you state that if free will is believed in, then it is pointless to consider God Almighty to be the Cause of all causes. This is the summary of your speech, from which it appears that by rendering God Almighty totally powerless, you wish to have full and total power and freedom, whereas His Divinity rules over our powers, the capabilities of our limbs, and over the sum total knowledge of our thoughts; so how can God be rendered powerless? If this were to happen, then the whole system of cause and effect would be cast into chaos, and much disorder would result in how to recognise the True Creator. Even praying would become pointless because if we have full freedom, then prayer would be of no benefit. You should remember that to believe in God Almighty as the Cause of all causes does not necessarily imply compulsion. This is indeed what faith is, and what unity of God is, that one should believe in Him to be the Cause of all causes and to pray to Him so that He can remove our weaknesses.

Then you say that the statement that says they have not been given eyes to see is metaphorical. Sir, if this is metaphorical then how did you come to know that the seals on hearts and coverings on eyes are literal? Is it the case that here you can see the seals and the coverings?

Then you state that you should rejoice if you believe that you have refuted mercy without recompense. It is sad that you still have not understood my point. This much is, of course, clear that justice means to establish the rights of both the parties; in other words, it becomes necessary thereby that God Almighty should have a right upon His servant which He should demand, and the servant of God should have a right upon God Almighty which he should petition for.

However, both these points are false because God Almighty created man out of absolute nothingness, and He did so as He wished; for example, a man or a donkey or an ox or some insect or ant. Thus, what right? And even though the rights of God are limitless, what does seeking them mean? If it means that God Almighty is in need of the obedience of His people and His Divinity can remain established only if every person becomes pious and pure-hearted or else His Divinity will slip away from His hand, then this is absurd because if the whole world became pious, His Divinity would not increase at all, and if they all became evil, then it would not decrease at all.

Hence, what does it mean for a right to be demanded as a right? The truth is that God Almighty, who is Independent and Self-Sufficient and is above the fact that He should ask for some right to fulfil His Own need, has created all that exists for the benefit of man to illustrate His Mastery, His Creativity, His Grace, and His Mercy. Firstly, by virtue of His guardianship—i.e., as required by Him being the Creator—He brought this world into being and then by the dictates of His Graciousness He bestowed upon them all that they needed.

Then, by virtue of His attribute of Mercy, He blessed their efforts and hard work, and then—on account of His attribute of Mastery—He assigned them responsibilities. And He made them responsible for enjoining good and forbidding evil and upon this, affixed warnings and promises. He simultaneously made this promise that whoever turns to repentance and seeks forgiveness after treading upon the path of sin, will be forgiven. Then He will deal with them in accord with His promises on the Day of Judgement.

What connection does the objection of mercy without recompense have with all this? And what connection is there with the establishing of rights and petitioning for justice from God Almighty in an arrogant manner? The true philosophy underlying all this is exactly what has been laid out in Surah al-Fatihah, as Allah the Exalted says:

6

Now look, here it was apparently thought that after mentioning [Rahman—Gracious] and [Rahim—Merciful] it would have been in keeping with the mention of these attributes to have brought here the word [Al-‘Adil—The Just], so that after Mercy mention of Justice should be made. God Almighty, however, turning aside from justice has here chosen to mention His attribute of [Maliki-Yaumid-Din—Master of the Day of Judgement] so that it may be known that it is not permissible to demand rights from Him nor can anybody be a petitioner of his own rights, nor is He in need—like one who would die if not given his right—of His servants that they should obey Him. In fact, the prayers and obedience of human beings are for their own benefit. As, for example, when a doctor prescribes some medicine for a patient, it is not so that the doctor may imbibe that medicine himself, or so that he may derive some pleasure from imbibing it, but rather it is for the well-being of the patient.

Then after this, you objected to jihad in Islam, but it is a pity that you have not understood an iota of the philosophy of Islamic jihad and have raised vain objections by ignoring the arrangement of the verses.

Let it be known that the wars in Islam were not like the way a tyrannical king subjugates a weak people and then kills them. The true picture of these battles is as follows. For a long period of time, the Holy Prophet of God Almighty and his followers continued to suffer all manner of pain at the hands of their opponents, in consequence of which many from among them were murdered and many were tortured to death in terrible ways, so much so that a plan was even hatched to murder our Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. The opponents attributed all these successes to the truth of their idols.

Even after the Holy Prophet(sa) had migrated, he was not left alone, and those very enemies traversed a distance so long that it required them to camp eight times in between to personally wage war upon the Muslims. It was then that the believers were commanded to fight to prevent their attacks and to afford peace to those who were like unto prisoners in the hands of their enemies, and, furthermore, to prove false the idols upon whom they relied for support and to whom their earlier successes had been attributed.

Just as Allah the Exalted states:

—(Part 9, Ruku‘ 18)7

Then He states:

—(Part 5, Ruku‘ 7)8

Then He states:

—(Part 2, Ruku‘ 8)9

Then He states:

—(Part 2, Ruku‘ 10)10

Then He states:

—(Part 2, Ruku‘ 17)11

Then He states:

—(Part 14, Last Ruku‘)12

Then He states:

—(Part 21, Ruku‘ 18)13

Then He states:

—(Part 4, Ruku‘ 1)14

Then He states:

—(Part 10, Ruku‘ 8)15

Now, after the translation of these verses you will realise what the real truth is. If this question is raised that no matter what sufferings the disbelievers imposed, the Muslims should have remained patient, then the rebuttal is that the disbelievers attributed their victories to the support of their idols Lat and ‘Uzza—the Holy Quran being full of these examples—whereas that was a time of respite given to them. It was for this reason that God Almighty desired that it should be proven that just as their idols are unable to compete with the Holy Quran; similarly, they are unable to make them victorious through the sword. Thus, the main purpose behind all the attacks that were made in Islam against them was to establish the helplessness of the idols of the disbelievers.

It was never the case that these battles were intended to make these people Muslims by giving them death threats. In fact, they were already liable to death owing to their various and sundry crimes and bloodshed. And from among the Islamic favours which the Merciful Lord had granted them, one was also that if somebody was bestowed the ability to join Islam, then he could be spared. Where is the coercion or compulsion in this?

The Arabs had the verdict of death upon them because of their previous crimes. Despite this, these concessions were also acted upon that their children should not be killed, their elderly should not be killed, their women should not be killed, and together with this, the concession was made that anyone who accepts Islam would also be spared death. (The rest, later.)

2 JUNE 1893 CE TIME 7:40

Statement Of

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

The answer, first, is that I did not say that he is the manifestation of Allah; on the contrary, I said that the second Person of the Godhead and humanity remained linked with each other. He became the manifestation of Allah when he became the Messiah; in other words, at the age of 30 years.

Second: Ample proof on the issue of Trinity has been given through logic regarding its possibility and through the Word of God regarding its occurrence. If you do not accept this, then everyone can judge for themselves after it is published.

Third: Did the Holy Spirit ever descend on any other Prophet in the form of a dove? Then you give no proof of any other Prophet who was equal to him, and present an unjust argument.

Fourth: The verse that I have presented by way of evidence contained an account of the Muslims saying that, ‘Do we even have any affair in our hand?’ The reply given to this was that, ‘All affairs are in the hand of Allah.’ The meaning of ‘governance’ that you, Sir, have given to the Arabic word [amr], the plural of which is, [umur], that too is an example of amr; that is to say, some affair. So the meaning is that every matter is in the hand of God. This definitely constitutes interference in the free exercise of choice by man. Honourable Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib! The references that you give of things created and the similitude of fields and water etc.—these are not examples having to do with freedom of choice or not. I do not accuse the gentleman of deceit, but he has certainly been deceived.

Fifth: The proof of the Unity of God is not advanced in this way at all that God Almighty, being the First Cause, should leave no latitude for the secondary cause. If the First Cause is Omnipotent, then He can create the latter with free will as well, and once He has made him with free will, then He cannot interfere in his free will because it is against His plan.

Sixth: I never said that the free will of man is limitless, but within his limits, he has absolute free will and your rejecting this is futile.

Seventh: There is nothing against free will in the statement of Isaiah which says, ‘I make peace and create evil.’ I do not understand why the gentleman referred to this verse.

Why did the heart of Pharaoh become hard? We explained this yesterday that when he was not stopped from committing his mischief and the hand of grace was withdrawn, then its consequence is that he necessarily became hard-hearted. Does the gentleman not understand that there is a big difference in causing something to happen and letting it happen? In English, there is a clear difference that ‘commission’ means to do something yourself and ‘permission’ means to let something happen. So, is letting something happen equal to being guilty of causing something to happen? And if this is the objection, then it is not right.

Eighth: It is stated in the third example you cited that He made them mischievous for Himself; the meaning of this is clear that He let them become mischievous. This is that same permission, not commission.

Why do you plunge into philosophical meaning while ignoring the metaphorical and ordinary usage of language? Do you converse with the ordinary public in this same manner that every word must be philosophical; in other words, according to philosophic usage? Nevertheless, the verse which is currently in dispute has a basic principle established, given that God appears to be stating within it that, ‘Every single thing is in My authority’, and the statement of this principle is under the heading, ‘They said, is any affair at all in our hand?’ This is the great rule that is mentioned here, and the conjectures of people are of inferior stature. The conclusion this leads to, you can judge for yourself.

Ninth: Jesus Christ, by virtue of his humanity, has to fulfil all the obligations to God; therefore, he will have to pass through tests and be tried by Satan as well. So is it necessary that we include this matter in the discussion of choice or lack thereof ?

Tenth: We have not placed any limits on the authority of God except for that limit to which every attribute is bound to by its nature. For example, we call Him the Omnipotent, but this cannot mean that He can also bring opposites together simultaneously, because another name for such bringing together of opposites is falsehood. And falsehood is no attribute that He should desire to bring into being, but only to manifest the truth. Thus, the meaning of Omnipotence is this that He should bring into being that which is possible and there is no need whatsoever for Him to make that which is impossible because that can only happen by lying. It should be clear that just as we cannot place inappropriate limits on Divine powers; similarly, we cannot place inappropriate limits on the free will of man.

Eleventh: Prayer is useless while one has full authority; this means that we also possess unlimited knowledge and power. However, I have never made any such claim, only that his [man’s] knowledge, power, and authority are all limited. So, in short, your assumptions and your suppositions are just imaginary.

Twelfth: We have never said that putting a seal on hearts and eyes is not meant to be metaphorical; therefore, why should this objection be made against us?

Thirteenth: We totally accept that the being of God Almighty is absolutely Self-Sufficient, but He is only free up to where all His attributes unanimously permit. Thus, if He should desire to be unjust to someone, then the attribute of Justice must prohibit it. Or if He should be moved to be pleased with unjust suffering, then His attribute of Goodness must prevent this. And so on.

He has many blessed attributes that can work being inclusive but cannot do so exclusively, just as when one attribute works, all the other attributes unanimously work together to aid it, even though the actual manifestation is of the original attribute which is in operation. And if one attribute is functioning, then it cannot be said that it is singular and no other attribute works with it. And it is not suitable for two attributes to—God forbid—contradict one another in any way.

Fourteenth: In the first instance, you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the differentiation of the two attributes: Mercy and Goodness. The difference is that Mercy is shown after being held accountable or after some suffering, while Goodness is only shown to keep the related people happy. Just like when a person is stuck in a problem, the attribute of Mercy delivers him from his misfortune, and if a person wishes to keep his animals happy and he feeds them the best food which they can eat, then it is due to Goodness.

Thus, this word ‘Goodness’ has been made mention of by the Prophet David who says, ‘Oh, come, taste and see that the Lord is good!’ Now, it is the duty of Justice that when sin is committed, it should remedy it, and Mercy cannot precede this, but rather after the redress and accountability have been done, it should come to seek to free the person. Until sin is committed, whatever good that is done to him is according to Goodness. And it should also be remembered that whatever has come into existence from nothingness has the right to ask his Creator that Why has such and such pain afflicted me? If You are Just, deal justly with this. If a goat is slaughtered then it is not enough to say that I am your Creator and Master, I give you a little pain for the benefit of others, do not complain unjustly. So, Justice does not wish that anybody suffers for something which he is not liable, or that the suffering might not lead to the development of some excellence in him. That is why I stated the three different types of suffering that you cannot ignore or erase. And then, thinking all suffering to be of just one type, how can you permit God—donning the cloak of Creator and Master—to take any and every worthy and unworthy action?

I have repeatedly stated to the gentleman that the attributes of Justice and Truth cannot be manifested without any benefit. So why do you ignore giving regard to the demand of Justice? Will Justice stop its demand if you ignore it? Verily, until its demand is fulfilled, Mercy cannot be shown.

Fifteenth: According to you, in Surah al-Fatihah, Allah the Exalted has not moved away from Justice nor has He given priority to Mercy over Justice; but rather, He has given people the shelter of His mercy, and this is rightly so. Whatever other vain illusions you may have is your choice.

Sixteenth: This is true that Allah the Exalted desires of His creations that they act in such and such a way and it is for their benefit as well, but to reject the Divine Rights by this is wrong. Does not God have some rights upon His servants? If not, then what recompense does God have for sins and why does He warn them of the sword of justice? When there is no recompense, then why the need for punishment?

The admonition of a father is indeed for the betterment of the son, but is the word of punishment absolutely meaningless? Admonitions are derived from Mercy, while punishment is derived from Justice. Thus, we also admonish and punish our children, but this does not mean that they should simply die. And when they become unworthy and are expelled, then it means they are being punished: ‘These are the consequences of your actions.’ Accordingly, these two matters are clearly differentiated; so why should they be ignored?

Seventeenth: We concede that the battles of Islam were of many kinds—for example: defensive, retaliatory, and administrative, etc.—but the reason given in the verse being debated is: ‘Kill those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and do not differentiate between the lawful and unlawful.’

2 JUNE 1893

Statement Of

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib states that before the manifestation there was a link with the second Person of the Godhead, but we cannot accept this unless he presents clear verses from the Gospels that the manifestation happened afterwards and that there was a link with the second Person of the Godhead from the beginning. Then his saying that I have proven the possibility of Trinity by logic, and have proven its occurrence through the Word of God; both of these remain—as of today—mere claims.

The audience may peruse the pages of his replies and see; where has he logically proven the possibility of the Trinity? The judgement of a logical nature is always conclusive. If it were to be logically permissible for the Messiah to be included in the Trinity, then logic would dictate this to be possible for others as well.

Then Deputy Sahib asks upon which Prophet did the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove? I proclaim that if the Holy Spirit had descended on Jesus the Messiah in the form of a gargantuan animal like an elephant or a camel, then it might have been some small occasion to boast; but to boast about a tiny little bird—labelling it as something incomparable—is totally out of place!

Behold, according to the disciples, the Holy Spirit descended upon them in the form of sparks of fire and sparks of fire prevail over a dove, because if a dove falls into the sparks of a fire it will get burned.

And your comment that which Prophet is equal to Jesus? only exposes your wishful thinking. I ask if Moses, peace be upon him, was not greater than Jesus, peace be upon him, for whom he was sent as a follower and devotee and was called a follower of his law? Some Prophets excelled so much more than the Messiah in performing miracles that—according to your Books—touching the bones of the deceased, they brought them back to life. Furthermore, the miracles of the Messiah remain suspended in a state of doubt owing to the mention of the pool [of Bethesda] that is recounted in John 5. And the glitter of all the Messiah’s miracles is dissipated by this account.

Moreover, so far as his prophecies are concerned, they already suffer a rather weak and feeble state, so on account of the excellence of which of his actions and practices is the superiority of the Messiah established?

Furthermore—by the way—if he was superior, then what was the need for him to be baptised by the Prophet John, and why did he confess his sins in front of him, and reject being called ‘good’? And if he possessed Divinity why would he have replied to Satan saying that it is written not to prostrate before anyone but God? And your criticism of my statement alleging that there is a verse in the Holy Quran stating that nothing whatsoever is in your control; this is not your misunderstanding but your feigned ignorance. I had had it written in my statement of yesterday that the meaning of this verse is not what you allege. The purpose is only this much that Allah the Exalted says that you should follow My command and law; you have no authority to interfere in this. Now, assess whether this statement is about compulsion being imposed upon man or whether the statement applies to an occasion when some people were prevented from unnecessarily intervening in the affairs of governance?

Therefore, I reiterate—whether you listen to me or not—that the Holy Quran has repeatedly mentioned quite clearly about choice, for which reason man will be held accountable. However, on other occasions, it is also stated in refutation of some false religions which existed in Arabia, that as you people believe, that such and such idol has a hand in the Divine system is absolutely wrong. That the source and root of every matter is God and that He is the Ultimate Cause of all causes and the Provider of the means for all causes, is the very reason that at times in the Holy Quran, God Almighty—removing reference to the intervening causes—refers to Himself as being the Cause of all causes, just as He states that, ‘The ship that sails in the sea is by Our beneficence.’ In short, we have given you ample reply here that an objection of compulsion cannot be raised against the Holy Quran nor are we called those who compel. You are still unaware of the doctrine of the Muslims; you do not even know that God Almighty orders for the hand of a thief to be cut off and that an adulterer should be stoned, so if the teachings were compulsive who could be stoned?

In the Holy Quran there are not just one or two, but hundreds of verses which prove the free will of man and, should you wish, a complete list will be presented. Notwithstanding, you yourself even believe this much that man does not have complete free will from all aspects, and his faculties and abilities and other external and internal causes are governed by God Almighty—this being our religion as well—so why do you unnecessarily prolong discussions with absurd reasoning?

Notice that when I presented to you as a rebuttal that it is written in the Torah that the heart of Pharaoh was hardened and that it is also written in Proverbs that the wicked were made for a day of evil, you submitted rather shallow explanations and then it is strange how you oppose the clear verses of the Holy Quran with such callousness that has driven you to the extremities of baseless bigotry. How fitting is someone’s saying that this is what happens when one does not pay due regard to the dignity of others!

The Holy Quran has not been revealed to explain just one half, but on just such occasions it is its responsibility to explain both halves. Sometimes, in regard to Him being the Cause of all causes, He explains the extent of His sovereignty and sometimes, by virtue of man being made accountable due to his given freedom of choice, He explains the authority that man has been granted. Hence, to take one statement from one place and impose it upon another without considering its proper context—if this is not bigoted, then what is?

If this is what you believe to be a valid objection, then we can prepare and present a veritable hoard of these types of verses duly listed from your Torah and Gospels, but I absolutely detest these worthless and absurd discussions. There is no doubt whatsoever that the words and meanings of the Torah, Gospels, and the Holy Quran completely agree on this issue without any differences, yet to argue in the presence of explicit agreement is shameful wrangling. Notice that these are the words found in the Torah: ‘I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh.’ Now you have excised these words and fabricated new words, stating this instead: ‘I did not harden it, but I let him become wicked.’ Yet even then, the result is still the same. If in the presence of someone a child is sitting near a well and is about to fall in it, and that person did not save the child even though he could have saved the child, then is he not at fault?

In any event, when you fixate upon semantics, is it not our right to criticize as well? If objections can be made against some words of the Quran, then similar words are also found in the Torah. In particular, the reference of Proverbs is worthy of your attention, wherein it is clearly written: ‘I have made the wicked for the day of evil.’

Now you had it written that God Almighty says, ‘I have created the wicked people for Myself.’ Lo and behold! Where it was, ‘for a day of evil’, there is, ‘for Me’. If this is not deliberate distortion, then what is it?

Then you decided to deceive people by pointlessly arguing on the Mastery of God Almighty. May it be known to you that although God Almighty is Holy, He does not hold anyone accountable without revealing His law. Besides this, it is a fact that all God Almighty demands—essentially—is that nobody associate partners with Him, no one disobey Him, and no one deny His existence. He does not consider other types of sins as truly sinning until His laws have been revealed.

Observe, in the time of Prophet Adam, God Almighty had permitted marriages between brothers and their real sisters. Then, at various times He permitted the drinking of alcohol, while at times He prohibited it; sometimes He permitted divorce, while sometimes He prohibited divorce; sometimes He permitted revenge, while at other times He prohibited revenge; and these are only within the species of humankind. If we look into the species of animals, then we see that there is no difference in mothers and sisters, etc. Every type of unlawful and illegitimate action takes place before God and offspring are born from them. Assuredly, it is proven from this that accountability does not exist prior to the revelation of a Book and you have already conceded that all these laws are for the benefit of man.

Moreover, you have still not given any valid rebuttal to the argument that in the event that all these ordinances are conceived to be for the benefit of man, and accountability is not even established before the promises and warnings of God Almighty; then—since this method can operate this way in a manner so easy for God Almighty to accept the repentance of the repenters in accordance with His promises—what is the need for any other irrational method?

I will answer the rest of this issue at another time. At this moment in time, I will talk about the remaining issues regarding jihad, and that is—as I have already mentioned—jihad was only undertaken to establish peace, to destroy the glory of the idols, and to thwart the attack of the enemies. And this verse, namely:

16

What benefit can this verse give you and what compulsion in faith is proven from this verse? Its meaning is clear: Fight those faithless people who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day—that is to say, those who are practically involved with indecent and filthy actions—nor hold as unlawful what is unlawful, and do not follow the ways of truth, and are from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah [tax] with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.

Now look, what does this prove? Verily, this merely proves that we should fight those who, through their rebellious behaviour, obstruct people from the right path and attack the true religion unjustly, and safeguard those who seek the Faith. How does this prove that the fight started without any attack from their side?

It is absolutely vital to examine the chronology of the battles, and so long as you refrain from studying the chronology, you will—intentionally or inadvertently—immerse yourselves into grave errors. The sequence is that first the disbelievers decided to kill our Holy Prophet(sa) and expelled him from Mecca due to these attacks. They then pursued him. When the persecution intensified to the extreme, the first verse regarding fighting was revealed, which was:

—(Part 12, Ruku‘ 13)17

Meaning that: Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made by their opponents. They have been given this permission because they have been wronged—and Allah indeed has the power to help those wronged—These are the people who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, and their sin was nothing other than that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’

Note that this was the first verse from which the sequence of battles began. Subsequent to this, under the circumstances when the enemy did not desist from fighting, God Almighty revealed the second verse:

18

Meaning that, and fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but even then do not transgress, for Allah does not befriend those who transgress.

Then He states:

19

Meaning that, and kill them wherever you find them and drive them out just as they have driven you out.

Then He states:

20

Meaning that: Fight them until their rebellion comes to an end, and the obstructions to religion are lifted, and the religion of Allah begins to reign.

Then He states:

21

Meaning that, fighting in the Sacred Month is indeed a sin, but to hinder men from the way of Allah, and to be ungrateful to Him and to expel the virtuous servants of Allah, the Exalted, from the Sacred Mosque, is a very great sin; and to spread rebellion, that is to say, to obstruct peace, is worse than killing. And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can.

Then He states:

22

Meaning that, and had it not been for Allah’s repelling men, some of them by the others, the earth would have become filled with disorder.

Then, again He states:

23

Meaning that, and if you desire to punish the oppressors, then punish them to the extent to which you have been wronged.

24

[Meaning,] And if you show patience, then, surely, that is best for those who are patient.

Then, to warn the People of the Book of their sins He states:

25

[Meaning,] O People of the Book! Why hinder ye the believers from the path of Allah, seeking to make it crooked.

So this was the reason why fighting with the People of the Book had to be taken up, because they hindered the call towards truth, aided the idolaters, and joined them in trying to destroy Islam, as it has been shown with much explanation in the Holy Quran. So what other solution was there other than to fight them and repel their attacks? Nevertheless, the Muslims were still not ordered to kill them. Instead, God Almighty stated:

26

Meaning that fight with them until they pay the Jizyah [tax] acknowledging their subjection.

God has clearly stated that Islam did not instigate jihad, meaning fighting, just as He states:

27

Meaning that these same opponents were the first to commence hostilities.

So now, when they were the ones to start and exiled [Muslims] from their land, massacred hundreds of innocents, pursued them and gave publicity to this success of their idols, then what other right and wise choice did the Muslims have other than to punish them?

In contrast to this, look at the battles of Prophet Moses(as). Look at the people against whom they were waged—what pain and suffering was incurred from them and yet how merciless were those battles in which hundreds of thousands of innocent children were killed? See Numbers 31:17, Deuteronomy 20:1; 1 Samuel 18:17, then 1 Samuel 25:28. Then, from Deuteronomy 20:10, and these verses it is also proven that first a message of reconciliation also used to be sent, as is evident from 1 Shab 102.28 [sic] Furthermore, it is clear that a Jizyah [tax] was also taken as mentioned in Judges 1:28, 30, 33, 35 and Joshua 16:10. (The rest, later.)