Twelfth Paper

DEBATE 2 JUNE 1893 CE

PROCEEDINGS

Deputy Abdullah Atham started dictating at 6:02 and finished at 6:041, which was read out. Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] Sahib started dictating at 7:27 and completed it at 8:20. This was also read out loud. Afterwards, the two presiders signed the respective documents and the session was adjourned.

3 JUNE 1893

Statement by

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

The remaining from 1 June—Regarding compulsion in faith, review (1) It is written in Surah al-Anfal:

2

Meaning that fight them until there remains no mischief and religion becomes wholly for Allah. (First Ruku‘ of Surah at-Taubah): ‘And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. And if any idolater asks for protection, grant him protection till he hears the Word of Allah; then convey him to a place of security.’

Then, it is written in the first Ruku‘ of Surah at-Taubah: ‘Say to the desert Arabs who stayed behind that ahead you will have to fight a very contentious army; either you will kill them, or they will believe.’

So apart from the verse we have been debating about, these are other verses that very clearly indicate compulsion in faith. And besides these, we have never denied those many statements in the Holy Quran regarding defensive, retributive, and administrative jihad. From among the various types of jihad, this is a unique type of jihad which we are emphasising and which indicates faith by compulsion. What does this mean that ‘fight them until there is no opposition to the religion of Allah and all religion becomes wholly for Allah’? And then what can this mean, ‘But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Otherwise, attack them from every path’? Then, from among them also, ‘if any idolater asks for protection, grant him protection till he may hear the Word of Allah, then convey him to a place of security’; in other words, such a place of protection where strangers cannot cause trouble, and if they turn away from Islam then they should not cause harm to any Muslim. Then, what does this mean that ‘either you kill them or they will submit’? The summary is very clear; all of these statements are commands to compel belief.

The remaining answer in the Paper of 2 June—Then, Sir, you mentioned again the Word becoming flesh, the Word, meaning the Second Person of the Godhead. In the first chapter of John it is written thus that the Word became flesh but its manifestation, for the office of Messiahship, became apparent at the age of thirty; when the Holy Spirit descended and a voice was heard saying, ‘This is my beloved Son. I am pleased with him.’

Sir, you repeatedly object to the issue of Trinity in Unity. It is incumbent upon you first to prove that absolute unity means something other than a being with multiple attributes or show in anything something other than a multiplicity of attributes. It should be clear that the definition of attribute is that it is a power which is constituted of one particular type of thing, for example, light only does the work of illuminating, etc., similarly a being which is the embodiment of all attributes and only has one task to perform.

You must not forget that we consider an attribute to be a Person of the Godhead; our meaning of a Person of Godhead is a particular being that is the epitome of all attributes. And our proof, which is based on a part of the attribute, by it our meaning is this, that that which is true for the part is also true for the whole.

We make the following statement regarding the three Persons of the Godhead: just like something exists in its own right and the others are equal to it and necessary and indispensable in it; in the same way, the First Person of the Godhead who is referred to as the Father, exists in His own right and the other Persons of the Godhead, i.e., the Son and the Holy Ghost, are necessary and indispensable in it. And such things where one exists in its own right and the others necessary and indispensable from it do not divide up the essence though they each have their own distinction.

3) You seem to have mocked the subject of the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove stating, ‘A bird is nothing but a small animal, why did it not descend in the form of an elephant or a camel?’ In answer to this, you should know that the dove is said to be a harmless animal and the harbinger of peace at the time of the flood of Noah; this is what was indicated by it descending in the form of a dove, while elephants and camels are mentioned as impure animals in the Torah. The Holy Spirit could not have come in their form. Nevertheless, if somebody were to say in response to your mockery that why did your Master, the Arabian Prophet, appear in the form of a small human body? Why did he not appear in the shape of a Simurg, then what would you say to this mockery?

4) When Moses(as) says that you should hearken to the Prophet who is to come like unto me, from among you; what does this say about who will be greater, the one who should be listened to, or the one whose listening has come to an end?

Then, it is written in Hebrews 3:3 that Moses was the servant of the house whilst Christ the Messiah was its master. Then, Moses came to the mountain to meet Jesus Christ; Christ did not go to meet him, so whose is the greater stature?

5) This statement of yours is incorrect that some miracles are small and some that are great also. They are the same handiwork of One Powerful Being. The making of a fly or an elephant requires one and the same power, but here the thing I find most amazing is that you have not proven any miracle of the Prophet of Islam at all, be it big or small. You contented yourself only by mentioning the miracles of others, or you made mention of some of your own visions and marvels that never made any demonstrable impact on the people.

6) Jesus Christ had never made any confession of his sins, neither in word nor implication, nor was there ever a religious verdict of sin placed against him.

It is true that the Holy Quran does not consider man to be only subject to coercion but rather, on the one hand, he is subject to coercion and at the same time he is subject to destiny; that is to say, a being with a choice. But what I say is that coercion occupies the foremost position in this and that these two are also contradictory to each other. Thus, we will give more references to verses that prove the foremost nature of coercion:

1. The gist of what is stated in the tenth Ruku‘ of Surah an-Nisa’, is: Those who say that good is from Allah and evil is from you; you should tell them that, ‘It is all from Allah alone.’

2. Then, in the eleventh Ruku‘ of Surah an-Nisa’, it is said that ‘The one whom Allah causes to become misguided, you cannot bring to the right path and for such a one there is left no path at all.’

3. Then, in the seventh Ruku‘ of Surah al-Ma’idah, it is said, ‘If God had so desired He would have given to all the same religion, but He wished to try you.’

Then, in the seventeenth Ruku‘ of Surah al-An‘am, it states: ‘They say that if Allah had pleased, we could not have joined gods with Him. In like manner did those who disbelieve say before.’

9) You have wrongly used the word itlaq for the free will of man; but rather, man is actually completely free within his fixed limits. I have never believed what you say, that there is some outsider involvement also in the exercise of free will, nor do I absurdly engage in argumentation. As they say, ‘Everyone ponders according to his capacity!’ But this contradictory issue of compulsion and free will for man is only to be found in the Quran alone.

10) I have repeatedly explained the meanings of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart; further repetition is of no use.

11) In Proverbs 16:4, it does not state that the wicked were created for wickedness but a day of evil. And the explanation of this can be found in Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 32:11, and 2 Peter 3:9. And in 1 Timothy 2:4 it is written that the wicked people are given a respite for salvation and the pleasure of God is not in this, as the Quran states regarding your Prophet seek forgiveness for your sins and for the sins of believing men and women.

With regards to being baptised, Jesus has declared his purpose himself; in other words, so that complete righteousness is attained—that is to say, to follow the present commandments and Divine laws. It should be known that the Mosaic dispensation and the actions of previous prophets remained until the day of the Pentecost, when Jesus Christ, by becoming resurrected, ascended to Heaven; from that moment on the Christian law was established. Before this, it was the previous law, and there was no mention of a succeeding law.

Now, you state that John baptised Jesus because he was greater, but John states himself that I am unworthy of even untying his shoelaces. Behold the Lamb of God, which shall be sacrificed for the sins of all the people.

You have repeatedly asked me questions regarding the issue of being good, and its answer has also repeatedly been given; so now there is nothing else to say about this except that it should be remembered that the conversation which Jesus had with the man that ‘Why do you call me good? There is only one who is good, that is, God!’ and at the end of the conversation he said to this same person, ‘If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But the young man went away sorrowful.’

Now, what does this mean? It means that Jesus was the Master of all Life and Wealth, but that young man did not believe him to be the master, which is why he was warned that you do not know me to be God as such, because all Jews believed that there could be no one good except God. That is why Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you deceitfully call me good?’ What Jesus said to him was by way of reforming his deceit and was not intended to reject his own Divinity.

7) What harm to his Divinity is there in Jesus, the man, being tried by Satan? He was tried because he was human and by remaining standing he regained and established what the first Adam had lost by falling, so where in this is there anything to object to? Let the wicked die in his wickedness? So this is wrong to say that the wicked were made wicked, just as it is wrong to say that Satan was made Satan. The truth is that Satan was made a holy angel, then after sinning, he formed himself into Satan. And this is also a mistake to consider letting somebody become wicked, as being the same as making somebody wicked. And regarding the example of the child which you gave, it too needs correcting, that if he is not aware of the differentiation between good and evil or if he does not possess the power to do good or evil then he is also to be exempted from judgement, and his death is not for being reborn.

12) You have deemed me to be a fraud; for this, I send peace upon you and my forgiveness without you even asking for it. (The rest, later.)

By

HAZRAT MIRZA [GHULAM AHMAD] SAHIB

Of all these verses of the Holy Quran that Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib has again written from which he wishes to derive the result of faith by compulsion, it is sad that in presenting these verses he did not employ an iota of fairness. I had clearly established in my earlier writing that the teaching of compulsion is most certainly not present in the Holy Quran.

First, the disbelievers started by inflicting great suffering upon hundreds of believers, killing some and expelling others from their homes. Then they pursued them, and when their cruelty exceeded all bounds and their crimes became worthy of punishment in the sight of God Almighty, then Allah the Exalted sent down this revelation:

—(Part 17, Ruku‘ 13)3

In other words, now Allah the Exalted also grants permission to retaliate for those people upon whom excesses were committed—that is to say, the Muslims—and for whose killing plans had been set in motion. Thereafter, on account of all the bloodshed which the people of Arabia had unjustly perpetrated and because of the brutal slaughter of Muslims that they had committed already, they had collectively become deserving of the law of retaliation. They had become worthy of being killed in the very same manner in which they had unjustly murdered innocent victims, unleashing brutal torture upon them. And just as they had expelled the Muslims from their homes and heaped destruction upon them, and taken possession of their wealth and properties and homes, the same should be done to them. However, just as God Almighty had given them some exemption, saying that their children and women should not be killed, so did He permit that if anyone of them becomes a believer on his own before he is killed, such shall be saved from the punishment which he had become liable for by virtue of his previous crimes and the shedding of blood. The Holy Quran is filled with such statements just like this very verse that I have presented. And together with this, there is this other verse as well:

—(Part 17, Ruku‘ 13)4

Meaning that: Alas those oppressed who have been driven out of their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’.

Then, after this, I present this verse:

5

Meaning that kill those idolaters of Arabia until no rebellion remains and religion—meaning governance—becomes wholly for Allah.

How is compulsion deduced from this? All that can be found from this is that you fight them until their power is broken and mischief and disorder are lifted, so that those people who had secretly embraced Islam should also be able to follow its commandments openly. If it had been the desire of Allah, the Lord of Glory, that faith should be forced upon people, as Deputy Sahib is understanding things, then why were Jizyah [taxes], reconciliations, and treaties made allowable? And why were the Christians and Jews permitted to live in peace by paying the Jizyah, spending their lives in harmony under the shadow of the Muslims?

Furthermore, the explanation which Deputy Sahib has given for the word [ma’manah—his place of security] is not a correct explanation. The meaning of the verse is that if some idolater wishes to hear the Holy Quran take him into your protection till he hears the Divine Word and then convey him to his own place of security.

Then, after this verse comes the verse:

—(Surah at-Taubah, Ruku‘ 1)6

In other words, this concession is put in place because they are a people who have no knowledge.

Now, Deputy Sahib takes this verse to mean that after listening to the words of Allah you should take him to such a place from where he cannot escape. If this is the standard of fairness and understanding, then it is understood what the consequences of this debate will be. You are unaware that the words of the Divine language in fact are: 7. Meaning that then convey this idolater to his place of security. Now, to distort such crystal clear and manifest words and to assert that this means to take him to such a place from where he cannot escape—continually remaining in the custody of the Muslims—is akin to murdering a manifest truth.

Then, Deputy Sahib presents this verse in which is the command to kill them after four months have passed, yet he fails to realise that this was for those criminals who broke their covenants, as Allah, the Lord of Glory, states:

8

Which means exactly this very thing, that, after their breaking of the treaties, what trust remains of their words or deeds?

Then He states:

9

[Meaning,] These idolaters observe not any covenant nor any tie of relationship, and it is they who exceed all bounds.

Then He states:

—(Surah at-Taubah, Ruku‘ 2)10

Meaning that: And if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief—surely, they have no regard for their oaths—that they may desist. Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Now, a fair-minded person can see from examining all these verses that there is no connection here at all to the use of force to make someone believe. In fact, the idolaters of Arabia had taken their persecution and shedding of blood to such extremes that they had become deserving of punishment. Just as they had murdered Muslim men and killed Muslim women mercilessly and also their children, they had become deserving under the Mosaic law of jihad that their women should have been killed, and their children should have been killed, and their young and old should have been put to the sword, and expelling them from their homelands, their cities and villages should have been razed to the ground.

However, our Holy Prophet(sa) took no such action. Instead, he gave them every type of concession, so much so that even though they had become liable for death owing to the bloodshed they perpetrated, he still presented them this additional concession that if any one of them wished to join Islam willingly, then he would be afforded safety.

Now, allegations are raised against these compassionate and merciful teachings of Islam, but the battles of Moses(as) are considered holy. It is sad, very sad; if at this moment in time, justice was adopted, there would be no difficulty in understanding the difference between the two scenarios. It is also amazing that the God who commanded Moses(as) to unjustly—without any reason—borrow the tableware and jewellery of the people of Egypt and then having deceptively taken custody, regard them as his own property, and then treat the enemy so mercilessly as to kill many hundreds of thousands of their children, loot their wealth, and take out therefrom a portion for God; and that Prophet Moses(as) can pick out for himself whichever woman he pleases, and under some circumstances even Jizyah should be seized, and the cities and villages of the enemies should be burnt to the ground; yet that very same God states in the time of our Holy Prophet(sa)—despite His just mentioned leniencies—do not kill the children, do not kill the women, stay away from the monks altogether, do not set fire to crops, do not demolish the churches, and only retaliate against those who take the first step in trying to kill you; and if they pay the Jizyah or if they are from the parties in Arabia who are liable to death because of their previous bloodshed, leave them alone if they accept Islam; and if any person wishes to hear the Word of God, then take him in your protection and when he has heard the words of God, convey him to his place of security! It is such a shame that now allegations are raised against that same God. It is a shame that those very people are raising allegations against these ideal and extraordinary teachings, who believe that the bloodletting of the Torah—from which even innocent children were not spared—were commandments from God Almighty!

Then Deputy [Abdullah Atham] Sahib stated in support of his statement regarding the issue of mercy without recompense, which it is wrong to believe that mercy comes before justice, that—in fact—the treatment which is extended before justice is called ‘goodness’, and mercy takes effect after justice. It is a shame that Deputy Sahib continues to commit error upon error—which of his errors should I correct? It should be clear that goodness—otherwise known as ‘beneficence’ or ‘generosity’—is not an attribute; in fact, it is the consequence and reward of a state of being. Here, the thing which should be named an attribute is nothing except Mercy; there can be no other name for it. And Mercy is the state when man or God Almighty—finding someone in a state of weakness, fragility, and feebleness, or affliction and in need of help—turns His attention to him to support him. Then the help which results—no matter how it comes into being—you may name it goodness or virtue or kindness. It may be that kindness is not an attribute and is not the name of a feeling ingrained in the heart, but it is definitely the result of that ingrained state of mercy.

For example, when an utterly helpless and hungry person comes before us, then by seeing his initial state of feebleness and weakness, a feeling of mercy develops in our hearts for him. Then, with this zeal of mercy, we will attain the ability to do good, and that goodness that you speak of will come into being. So now look, is goodness the fruit and the result of Mercy or is it a completely separate attribute? The fair-minded people can judge this for themselves.

Then you state that Mercy comes after Justice. From this you mean to reject the words in Surah al-Fatihah of the Holy Quran, which are 11. But how Mighty is Allah the Exalted that from this, the veil is being lifted to expose your lack of knowledge? Who does not know that Mercy—as I have just explained—is born of seeing somebody in a state of weakness or feebleness or affliction, and not that it comes into being after justice is manifested?

This is how it is in the Torah: Ezra 3:11, Nehemiah 9:3 and 9:19, Psalms 86:5 and 106:1. Moreover, your other statement, which you keep reiterating as if Mercy and Justice are at war with one another, and atonement was recommended to settle the dispute. This statement of yours is completely wrong. There is no doubt whatsoever that sin comes into being when first the law requiring obedience is published, because disobedience comes after [the promulgation of the law requiring] obedience. So this being the case, it is clear that when the rules are revealed and the Book of God Almighty begins to operate according to its promises—in other words, it will have injunctions like if so and so does good deeds then his reward will be such and such, or if he does bad deeds then his punishment will be such—then, in such circumstances, atonement has no right to intervene whatsoever because decisions are made according to His promises and warnings. This being the case, even if a thousand sons were crucified instead of one, even then the promise of God cannot be broken, nor is it written in any Book that God Almighty breaks His promises. Since the entire foundation is based upon His promises and not on anybody’s right, the decisions should—therefore—be made according to His promises.

Your repeatedly stating that decisions are made in accordance with rights amazes me. You fail to understand that nobody has a right against God; if anyone had a right against God, then many allegations would be raised against Him from all directions. As I have already explained, insects, bugs, and all types of animals, which God Almighty has created, would complain why He created them as such.

Similarly, God Almighty also does not hold anybody accountable before His Book is revealed or sent. Besides, the rights of God upon man are as numerous as His favours upon man—in other words, they cannot be numbered—but the term sin will only apply to those actions that fall under the label of disobedience after the Book is revealed. And since this is the case, it proves that God Almighty actually does not generally demand His rights because they are innumerable and beyond measure, but He does hold people accountable for any disobedience.

And acts of disobedience, as I have just stated, are bound together with promises and warnings; in other words, the one doing good deeds will definitely be rewarded, and the one who does bad deeds will taste the evil fruits thereof. And together with this, it is also promised that salvation can be attained through faith and repentance; so, this being the case, what link remains with atonement? Can someone being crucified relieve Allah the Exalted from the fulfilment of His promises?

Sir! These are punishments required by law which humans will receive—these punishments have nothing to do with rights, and this is also your own belief. So if this is the situation, these rewards and punishments are all due to the promises and warnings. There is no other way which is opposed to this.

And it is true that Allah the Exalted is not pleased with evil nor disbelief—who can deny this? However, crimes can only be called crimes once the law deems them to be crimes. Otherwise, hundreds of impermissible acts have transpired and they continue to transpire, but if they are not included in the Holy Book, then how can they be crimes? For example, just as man kills and sheds blood, similarly a beast like a lion always causes bloodshed to fill its stomach; and just as man follows the injunctions of marriage by refraining from his mother, sister, and other relations, this law is not even found in animals. And for humans, some of the laws of shariah have been changed; for example, the Prophet Moses(as) was permitted to choose any woman for himself from among the female prisoners of war, to kill children, to deceitfully take possession of foreign wealth and use it as sustenance for long-distance travels, and to burn villages to the ground, but where is this permission granted in other religious laws? (The rest, later.)

Statement Of

DEPUTY ABDULLAH ATHAM

The Remaining Answer From Yesterday

14) You will not be able to show that protection was offered on the condition of faith in the wars of Moses. And you cannot say that the epidemics—just as was the deluge of Noah(as) or other cases of mass deaths—were not by the command of God, or that the innocent killed therein became thereby accounted as not innocent. So you either reject the Torah being the Word of Allah or stop your criticisms. Our criticisms against the Quran are by virtue of it being opposed to Divine attributes, and from this we conclude that it cannot be the Word of Allah and that the Prophet of Islam cannot be a Messenger of Allah, and we have never gone against our objections to accept that it is the Revealed Word or that he is a true Prophet. Thus, our objections are not like the objections you raise against the Torah despite believing it to be the Word of Allah in accord with the Quran and believing that Moses was a true Prophet of Allah, yet you raise objections.

As I have already shown some of the Quranic teachings which are against Divine attributes, I shall state some more such Quranic teachings also. For example, one is that the Quran—instead of teachings worship of the truth—teaches worshipping the fear of falsehood, as is written in Surah an-Nahl that, ‘whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed, providing that he is not forced thereto while his heart is at peace, on such a one is Allah’s wrath.’ In other words, in a state of compulsion, though the heart is at peace in the truth of Allah, to declare disbelief in Him will not lead to Divine wrath. And this is clearly worship of the fear of falsehood instead of worshipping the truth that is the right of the Omnipotent God. And then in Surah al-Kahf, it is written that when Dhul-Qarnain arrived in Arabia, he found the sun setting in a stream of murky water. Now, although it states here that it was Dhul-Qarnain who found this to be so, this is not without the attestation of the words of the Quran—that is to say, the testimony of the Quran supports this finding—but this is not actually correct. Thus, how can it be associated with the truth?

3) These are the limits to the timings of keeping fasts mentioned in the Quran, that it should be started before the manifesting of the white thread of the day and observed till the coming of the dark thread of the evening. The question here is that if the Quran is for all humanity then what will happen to Greenland and Iceland where the sun does not rise for six months? And if you say that there an estimate of timings should be made, then the answer to this is that the Quran itself estimates the time, and does not permit anybody else to estimate it. These are just some of the Quranic teachings by way of example, which go manifestly against the truth.

4) Apart from this, it is obvious that a junior can cite a senior in an oath; and the meaning of the oath is that if his statement is false, then the elder can reprimand him. But in the Quran there are oaths taken of high ceilings, boiling water, olive, and pen, etc. What damage can these things do to God? If these types of oaths are not a joke, what are they?

Today’s Answer

1) You state that the Quran does not teach faith by compulsion. Nothing more need be said regarding this; the fair-minded people will be able to see the statements of both and come to a just evaluation themselves.

To execute a commandment of Divine wrath is different from explaining a suggested policy. Moses was Divinely commanded to completely destroy those seven nations just like when a storm is ordained or an epidemic ordered, in which the sinful are destroyed and the trial of the innocent comes to an end, they are not deemed sinners. However, your commandments are a matter of policy in which it is written that women and children should be kept safe and whoever joins Islam will be protected. And this is precisely protection afforded based on faith, on which these allegations are raised, and no allegation can be raised on the pestilences ordained by God, no matter by what means they are wrought.

The meaning of [ma’manah] is not that only the land or house of that very person should be considered to be the abode of peace, in fact, in Surah al-Anfal there is a verse, the exact reference of which I shall right now provide, after finding it, which states that whoever does not leave his home to come and stay in our midst is not safe from our war. From this, it is proven that by ma’minah is meant that very place where strangers cannot give them any trouble and where they cannot be afforded an opportunity to deviate from the Faith.

I have accepted your many different types of jihad; my allegation is regarding the jihad of faith by compulsion. Whatever else you have stated is totally irrelevant. You have not given a proper answer to the verses that I have presented by way of argument. And regarding what you said that Moses kept, from among the women who remained after the looting, those good and nice for him, what becomes clear from the Torah is that he entered into marriage once with the daughter of Reuel or Jethro. Apart from this he married no one else, nor did he keep a slave girl. However, he did permit to be left free some of the women who were brought by way of loot by the Children of Israel since there were no guardians left for them because the order was to kill everyone. And this usually happens in every epidemic that some people indeed survive by the will of God. But how can you hide the women of plunder and purchased women that the Quran deems lawful, who in fact had guardians and carers present?

Look at Surah al-Ahzab in which this is written:

12

In this verse ownership is by buying, and [fai’] refers to plunder. And that which Sir Syed Ahmad Khan has said in explanation of this verse it is not the occasion to comment on, but later I shall show the error he makes.

We have shown the difference in the battles of Moses, that they were by the command of God and with His signs, whilst the battles of the Quran were clearly a matter of policy, in support of which never was any miracle shown and the reverence accorded to them goes against the attributes of God, so we cannot consider them to be Divinely ordained.

2) It is true that the Children of Israel borrowed the gold and silver of the Egyptians, but that gold and silver belonged to the true Master who is God, and that same God permitted them to keep it with themselves, so where is the excess in this? The Quran has decreed the Jizyah [tax] and a life of humiliation for the People of the Book. Although they were exempt from open massacre, you cannot say that paying the Jizyah and being disgraced is nothing small and completely harmless. There is necessarily some harm in this.

I will not give you any additional historical references as to what kind of things happened; we have only chosen the Quran and only on this will we raise our objections and do no more.

3) You assert goodness to be a part of Mercy, but forgive me, this is such a common mistake which even the average thinker can understand. Goodness is that which shows more benevolence than what is rightfully merited, whereas Mercy is that which liberates from the accountability of Justice. But you have pointlessly tried to make sure that the teachings of Atonement are not proven, that is why you do not wish to understand this.

This is a strange thing that you state that Mercy has precedence over Justice, and what is strange in this is that mercy is shown upon being held accountable; in other words, the accountability demanded by justice, so how can it have precedence? The right thing to say is that every attribute manifests itself on its own proper occasion, and those things that you believe to be related to Mercy are in actuality related to goodness; they have nothing to do with Mercy.

I shall define goodness a little more by way of explanation. For example, if a person bathes his animals properly, feeds them, gives them drink, much more so than would ever be available to them if they were to be set free, then this is Goodness. And if a person causes harm to those animals that are under his protection and he is pleased by injuring them, then this is that matter which is opposite to Goodness. Every creature that comes into existence from nothingness has some rights on its Creator, one of them being that they will be protected from any being who wishes to cause them pain for whatever reason; this is the limit of Justice, but whoever excels from this and increases their contentment, then this is Goodness. And when a person is justly called to account for his deliberate and intentional actions and is then helped to be free from this, then this is called Mercy.

4) Regarding animals, what has been said concerning their being killed for purposes to do with the supply of food and our economic existence? If they suffer some pain then, Sir, you should prove whether it is something apart from the three types of suffering which we have mentioned before, and show if there is some recompense due that needs to be adjudged. Otherwise, what blame is there, and those who are not even aware of the nature of cruelty, or as you also say, how can there even be any recompense done? It appears, Sir, that you have not dived into the depths of this philosophy and seen all four sides of it, nor examined its inside and outside. Once you attain a full understanding of its nature, then you will not even present these kinds of arguments.

5) I had asked a question regarding angels and the birth of Jesus Christ. I have much to say about this, you have not yet given a reply to this; we will wait for it.