General Introduction

In presenting this new translation and commentary of the Quran, we think it proper to point out that this is not a commercial enterprise nor does its main interest lie in its being new.

Our effort has been prompted by the belief that while a new translation is needed today by those who do not know Arabic, a new commentary is needed by all, whether they know Arabic or not and this for two reasons:

i) Translations prepared by non-Muslims (with the exception of translations into Urdu and Persian) have all been prepared by authors who had little or no knowledge of the Arabic language and who were, therefore, unable even to understand the Arabic text, not to speak of being able to translate it. Some of them translated from other translations, and this made the meaning only more remote from the original.

ii) For their interpretation of the text these translations rely not on a knowledge of the Arabic language, but on the older commentaries. A commentary, however, is largely a matter of individual opinion, part of which may be accepted by one person, part by another, and part by none at all. A translation based on a commentary may be said to reflect an individual opinion, not the true meaning of the text.

In view of these defects, there is genuine and pressing need of a new translation prepared by Arabic-knowing scholars and firmly based on a knowledge of the Arabic language, its canon and idiom.

Present Translation Fulfils the Need

The present English translation is intended to fulfil these two requirements and, God willing, it will be followed in due course by similar translations into other languages.

The Arabic language is a language with a philosophical design. Its words have been designed with a purpose. Its roots have been devised for the expression of elementary emotions and experiences, and these by slight variations in actual use give to Arabic words a significance both wide and deep. To turn them adequately into any other language is well-nigh impossible, and, as translation alone is not enough, we have to add explanatory notes to a translation to show the breadth of meaning hidden in the text. Our own translation is no exception to the rule. It cannot hope to bring out the complete or even the approximate meaning of the original. It may only hope to bring out one of its possible meanings. To make up this deficiency, therefore, we have added explanatory notes to our translation. But even these are not comprehensive. They do not bring out the full sense of the text, but they compensate to some extent for the limitations of the translation. Under ‘Important Words’ we have indicated the breadth of meanings which the text possesses; and, for this, we have drawn on lexicons regarded as standard not only by Muslims but also by Arabic-speaking non-Muslims. We trust that a study of this material will deepen the reader’s insight into our translation, and convince him that the sense we have sought to put into the Arabic original is not arbitrary but is based upon accepted Arabic usage and canon. The reader with no knowledge of Arabic should feel assured that our rendering, though unacceptable to some, is based on sound Arabic usage and can be dismissed only if evidence of other parts of the Quran or of sound Arabic usage points to the contrary.

Special Features of this Commentary

Having said so much about our translation, we wish to say something about our commentary.

Commentaries of the Quran are already many, and an addition to their number seems hard to justify. But we have good reasons for attempting and presenting a new commentary. They are:

i) As we have said, Arabic words possess an extraordinary breadth of meaning. A translation consequently can adopt only one of all possible meanings. It was necessary, therefore, to append notes to the translation, and indicate other possible meanings of the text.

ii) All the large and systematic commentaries of the Quran are in Arabic, and it should be obvious that those who cannot read the Quran in Arabic can make no use of these commentaries.

iii) Explanatory notes added to their translations by non-Muslim authors are inadequate for two reasons:

(b) Their authors had no knowledge of Arabic, or very little. They were unable to read the larger and more reliable commentaries. To these commentaries, therefore, European translators make no reference. They refer only to the minor and more popular commentaries. If there is a reference to any of the larger works, it is taken from another work, not from the original.

iv) Comprehension of any systematic or scientific book requires knowledge not only of the language in which the book is written and of the commentaries on the book which experts in the language or in the subject may have written. It also requires close study of the book itself and insight into the terminology, idiom and fundamentals which the book employs and from which its contents derive their significance. Those who seek to interpret the book without a study of the book itself will have little help from the commentaries. European translators and commentators of the Quran do not seem to have made the necessary close study of the Holy Book. No wonder, therefore, that their comments often border on the ludicrous.

v) Every age gives rise to new sciences in the light of which every book which professes to teach anything is exposed to a new criticism. The value of a book is either more securely established or it becomes more doubtful than ever. The Quran being no exception to the rule, a new commentary of it was necessary in the light of new knowledge. Without it we cannot judge how far the Quran is still effective as a teaching or how far it has surpassed its own record.

When the first commentaries of the Quran were written, the Bible in Arabic did not exist. There was not one complete copy. The fragments which had been translated into Arabic were not available to the commentators of the Quran. Whenever, therefore, they had to discuss parts of the Quran containing references to the Bible or the Mosaic tradition, they had to rely on hearsay or their own speculations. Needless to say, their comments are at times disappointing and at times ridiculous. European writers attribute their mistakes to the Quran and hold up the Holy Book to ridicule. They forget that these commentators did not know the Bible. They relied on popular accounts or on what they heard from Jewish and Christian scholars who passed on to the unsuspecting commentators of the Quran material drawn sometimes from their books of tradition instead of the Bible and sometimes from their own mischievous imagination. In this transaction the commentators no doubt betrayed simplicity and lack of caution, but the Jewish and Christian scholars betrayed lack of honesty and piety. European writers of our time, therefore, have far more reason to deplore the dishonesty of their forefathers than to ridicule the Muslim commentators of the Quran. But now it is different. Now knowledge of the Bible has become common. Arabic, Latin and Greek works have become accessible to Muslim scholars and we are able to comment in a new way upon parts of the Quran which contain references to the Bible and the Mosaic tradition.

vi) Until our own time controversy between one religion and another related less to moral and social ideals and more to belief and ritual. Because of this the teaching of the Quran bearing on moral ideas and moral training and on social, economic, and political relations was never discussed. Today, however, the world thinks much more in terms of these practical matters. It was necessary, therefore, to attempt a commentary which should deal more adequately with the practical teaching of the Quran.

vii) Being a revealed Book the Quran contains prophecies. A discussion of these prophecies is not possible until after they have been fulfilled. For this reason also we needed a new commentary which should enumerate prophecies of the Quran which have been fulfilled so far and which constitute an important part of the proof that the Quran is a revealed Book of God.

viii) Quran deals with all other religions and ideologies. It incorporates in itself the best part of their teaching, points to their weaknesses and supplies their deficiencies. Early Muslim commentators were ignorant of what these religions and ideologies taught and stood for. They were, therefore, unable to appreciate completely what the Quran had to teach about them. Now all the most obscure teachings have come to light so that the teaching of the Quran relating to other teachings has become evident to its devotees. To compensate for this shortcoming in the older commentaries, also, we needed a new commentary of the Quran.

For these reasons we feel that our translation and commentary not only does not call for apology but meets a genuine and important need. In presenting it we discharge a duty.

We hope that those who read our translation and commentary with care and without prejudice will feel constrained to view Islam from a new angle. We hope that they will become convinced that true Islam is not full of faults, as Western writers imagine it to be, but that it is rather a well laid out garden of the spirit where a visitor may dwell with every kind of fragrance and beauty and which affords a vision of the Paradise promised by all Teachers of religion.

Other Revealed Books

When the Quran was revealed about 1325 years ago there were in the world, many religions and many religious books. In and near Arabia there were people who believed in the Old and the New Testaments. Many Arabs had become Christian or had developed a leaning towards Christianity. Arabs were being converted to the Jewish religion. Among converts were Ka‘b bin Ashraf, a Medinite chief and a notorious enemy of Islam, and his father. Ka‘b’s father belonged to the Banu Ta’iyy tribe. He became so enamoured of the Jewish faith that the Jew, Abu Rafi‘ bin Abi Huqayq, gave his daughter in marriage to him and Ka‘b was born of this marriage.1 In Mecca itself, apart from Christian slaves, there were Meccans who leaned towards Christianity. Waraqah bin Nawfal, cousin of Khadijah, the first wife of the Holy Prophet, entertained the Christian belief. He also had some knowledge of Hebrew and translated the Hebrew Gospels into Arabic. We have in Bukhari:

Waraqah bin Nawfal had accepted Christianity in the period of darkness; and used to translate the Gospels from Hebrew into Arabic.2

At the other end of Arabia lived the Iranians, and they also believed in a Prophet and a book. Though the Zend-Avesta had suffered changes at human hands, it was yet held in reverence by many hundreds of thousands of believers and a powerful State was at its back. In India the Vedas had been adored for thousands of years. There was also the Gita of Sri Krishna and the teaching of the Buddha. Confucianism held sway in China but the influence of the Buddha was increasing.

Need of the Quran

In the presence of all these books and teachings, did the world need another book? This is the question which should occur to everyone who starts upon a study of the Quran. Its answer will take many forms:

First, was not this division between religion and religion reason enough for the coming of yet another religion to unite all? Secondly, was not the human mind to undergo a process of evolution similar to that which the human body had already gone through? And, just as physical evolution had ultimately become established, were not mental and spiritual evolution destined towards an ultimate perfection which was the very end of human existence? Thirdly, had not earlier books become so defective that a new book had now become a universal necessity which was met by the Quran? Fourthly, did earlier religions regard their Messages as absolutely final? Did they not believe in continued spiritual progress? Did they not continuously assure their followers of a coming Message which would unite mankind and lead them to their ultimate objective?

The answer to these four questions is the answer to the question concerning the need of the Quran in the presence of earlier books and Messages.

Was not division between religion and religion reason enough for the coming of a new Teaching which would unite all earlier teachings?

God of the Bible-A National God

Religion has a twofold purpose: (i) it enables man to meet his Maker; and (ii) it teaches him his duty towards his fellowmen. All religions existing at the advent of Islam were not only different but mutually contradictory. The Bible talked not of God, but of the God of Israel. We read in it again and again:

And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me.3

And also thus said the king, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which hath given one to sit on my throne this day, mine eyes even seeing it.4

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for ever and ever. And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord.5

And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath with his hands fulfilled that which he spake with his mouth to my father David, saying...6 God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.7

Jesus also regarded himself as a Teacher for Bani Isra’il. If others approached him, he would send them away. In Matthew 15:21-26 we read:

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.8

Vedas Also a National Scripture

Among the followers of the Vedas, the reading of the Vedas had become so exclusive a prerogative of the high castes that Gotama Rishi says:

If a Sudra happens to hear the Vedas then it is the king’s duty to drop molten lead and wax into his ears; if a Sudra were to recite the Vedic Mantras the king should cut off his tongue and if he try to read the Vedas, the king should cut his body.9

In the Atharva-Veda the orthodox are taught to put the non-Vedics in chains and to plunder their houses:

Consume, with lion aspect, all their hamlets, with tiger aspect, drive away thy foemen. Sole lord and leader and allied with Indra, seize, conqueror, thine enemy’s possessions.10

Similarly Vedic prayers addressed to the sun, moon, fire, Indra, and even grass, seek the destruction of the non-Vedic dharmis. Thus we have:

Bewildering the senses of our foemen, seize thou their bodies and depart, O Apva. Attack them, set their hearts on fire and burn them: so let our foes abide in utter darkness.
Whetting thy bolt and thy sharp blade, O Indra, crush thou the foe and scatter, Those who hate us.11
Blind, O my foemen, shall ye be even as headless serpents are: may Indra slay each best of you, when Agni’s flame hath struck you down.12
Cleave through, O Darbha, amulet, my foes, my adversaries heart; Rise thou and batter down their heads.13
We also have:
Do not hold discourses with non-Vedic dharmis.14
Should anyone criticize the Vedas, turn him out of the country, that is, condemn him to a life-sentence.15

Confucianism and Zoroastrianism also were national religions. They did not address their Messages to the whole world, nor did they try to teach on any large scale. Just as Hinduism regards India as God’s favoured land, so does Confucianism regard China as God’s own kingdom. There are only two ways to resolve this division and disagreement between religions: either we must hold that there are several gods, or, if God is one, we must prove Him so. Or we must have these conflicting religions replaced by one Teaching.

God Is One

The world is far advanced now. We do not need to labour over the point that if the world has a Maker, He is and can only be one Maker. The God of Israel, the God of the Hindus, the God of China and the God of Iran are not different. Nor is the God of Arabia, of Afghanistan and of Europe different. Nor is the God of the Mongols and the God of the Semites different. God is one, even as the law to which the world is subject is one law, and the system which links one part of it to another is one system. Science builds itself on the belief that all natural and mechanical changes are expressions of one law. The world has one principle—motion, as the materialistic philosophers assert. Or, it has one Maker. If this is true, expressions like the God of Israel, the God of the Arabs, the God of the Hindus, are meaningless. But if God is one, why should we have so many different religions? Were they the product of the human brain? Was it because of this that every nation and every people worshipped its own God? If these religions were not a human product, why and how came this division between religion and religion? If ever there was reason for this division, was it proper that the division should continue?

Religion–Not a Product of Human Imagination

As for the question whether these religions were the product of human imagination, the answer is certainly that they were not and this for several reasons:

First, according to all ordinary standards the Founders were men of slender means. They had no power or prestige. Yet they addressed themselves to the great as well as the small and in due course they and their followers rose from a humble to a high position in the world. This proves that they were sustained and supported by a great Power.

Secondly, all Founders of religions have been persons highly honoured and valued for the purity of their lives even by those who later, on the announcement of their claims, became their enemies. It is inconceivable that those who did not lie about men, began suddenly to lie about God. The universal acknowledgement of the purity of their lives before the announcement of their claims is proof of the truth of these claims. The Quran stresses this point:

I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime before this. Will you not then understand?16

The verse represents the Holy Prophet as saying to his accusers, ‘I have lived for a lifetime among you, as one of you. You had the chance to observe me at close quarters; you have been witnesses to my truthfulness. How then dare you say that I have today suddenly begun to lie about God?’

Verily, Allah has conferred a favour on the Believers by raising among them a Messenger from among themselves.17

That is, “a Messenger to you, who is one of you, not one whom you do not know, but one whom you well know and of whose purity of character you have yourselves been witnesses.”

Even of Prophets other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, the Quran makes similar assertions. They were raised from among their own people. It could not be said of them that those whom these Prophets first addressed did not know them well enough. When the inmates of Hell are cast into Hell, God will address them, saying:

Did not Messengers from among yourselves come to you, reciting unto you the Signs of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours?19

O Company of Jinn and men! did not Messengers come to you from among yourselves who related to you My Signs and who warned you of the meeting of this your day?20

And We sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, who said, ‘Serve Allah. You have no God other than He’.21

The word “witness” used here means a Prophet raised for a people. On the Day of Judgement, the Prophets will point to themselves as visible proof of what God’s communications had done for them. God will put disbelievers to shame, saying, “See what My Prophet has attained to, and to what your disbelief has led!” All the Prophets, we are told, were raised from amongst their own people. The conditions under which each Prophet was brought up and the reactions of each Prophet to these conditions were well-known to each people. Each people, therefore, was a witness of the piety and purity of its Prophet. Besides this we also have in the Quran verses such as the following:

And unto Ad We sent their brother Hud.23
And to Thamud We sent their brother Salih.24
And to Midian We sent their brother Shu‘ayb.25

The verses mean that Hud, Salih and Shu‘ayb, were in close association with their respective peoples, so that those peoples could be said to know everything about them. Of Salih we read that when he announced himself as a Prophet to his people, he was told:

O Salih, thou wast among us one in whom we placed our hopes. Dost thou forbid us to worship what our fathers worshipped?26

O Shu‘ayb, does thy prayer bid thee that we should leave what our fathers worshipped, or that we cease to do with our property what we please. Thou art indeed intelligent and right-minded.27

From these passages it is clear that, according to the Quran, the Holy Prophet himself, and Hud, Salih, Shu‘ayb and other Prophets, were not obscure persons little known to their respective peoples. Their people well knew what sort of lives their Teachers led and whether they were not honest, God-fearing and pious individuals. Of none of them could it be said that a nondescript pretender had designs upon his own people.

Thirdly, the Founders of religions did not possess those powers and accomplishments which ordinarily make for successful leadership. They knew little or nothing of the arts or culture of their time. Yet what each taught turned out to be something in advance of his time, something pertinent and seasonable. By adopting this teaching people attained to a great height in civilisation and culture, and retained the glory for many centuries. A true religious Teacher makes this possible. Yet it is inconceivable that a person innocent of ordinary accomplishments, as soon as he begins to lie about God, should come to have such tremendous powers that his teaching dominates all other teachings current in his time. Such a development is impossible without the help of a powerful God.

Revealed Teachings Always Against Current Ideas

Fourthly, when we consider what these Founders of religions taught, we find that it has always been contrary to all contemporary trends. If this teaching had been in line with the tendencies of their times, it could be said that these Teachers only gave expression to those tendencies. Instead, what they taught was very different from anything they found current. A terrible controversy ensued and it seemed as though the country had been set ablaze. Yet those who chose to deny and controvert the teaching were ultimately themselves compelled to submit to it. This also proves that these Teachers were not a product of their times, but were Teachers, Reformers and Prophets in the sense in which they claimed to be.

In the time of Moses, how novel must have seemed his teaching about One God. When Jesus confronted in his time a materialism born of the worldliness of the Jews and of the vicious influence of Rome, how peculiar must have appeared his stress on the spirit? How out of place must have been his Message of forgiveness to a people who trembled under the tyranny of Roman soldiers, groaning all the while for legitimate vengeance? How out of time must have appeared Krishna who taught war, on the one hand, and, on the other, a withdrawal from the material world in order to cultivate the spirit. The Zoroastrian teaching embracing all aspects of human life, must also have come as a shock to the licentiousness of that time. The Holy Prophet appeared in Arabia and addressed himself to Jews and Christians. How strange it must have appeared to those who believed that there was to be no teaching outside their own! Then he taught the Meccan idolaters that God was One, and that all men were equal. How peculiar must his teaching have seemed to a people who believed intensely in the superiority of their own race! To teach hardened drunkards and gamblers the evils of their ways, to criticize almost everything they believed or did, to give them a new teaching and then to succeed seems impossible. It is like being able to swim up-stream against a current rushing with tremendous force. It is utterly beyond human capacity.

Fifthly, the Founders of religions have all shown Signs and miracles. Every one of them announced at the outset that his teaching would prevail and that those who might seek to destroy it would themselves be destroyed. They were without means and ill-equipped. Their teachings were contrary to firmly established beliefs and habits of thinking and provoked the fiercest opposition of their people. Yet they succeeded, and what they had foretold came to pass. Why were their prophecies and their promises fulfilled? No doubt there have been others, generals and dictators, who have attained to apparently similar success. But it is not success which is in point. It is success which is foretold, which is attributed to God from the beginning, success on which is staked the Prophet’s whole moral reputation and which is achieved in spite the worst opposition. Napoleon, Hitler and Chingiz Khan rose high from humble positions. But they did not set themselves against any thought current of their time. Nor did they declare that God had promised them victory in spite of opposition. Nor did they have to confront any wide-spread opposition. The ends they set out to achieve were adored by most of their contemporaries, who perhaps proposed different methods but not different ends. If they suffered defeat, they lost nothing. They still stood high in their people’s esteem, and feared nothing. But it was different with Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster and the Prophet of Islam. True, they did not fail. But if they had, they would have lost everything. They would not have been proclaimed as heroes, but would have been condemned as pretenders and intriguers. History would have taken scant notice of them and lasting disrepute would have been their reward. Between them and men like Napoleon or Hitler, therefore, there is a world of difference—the same difference as there is between their respective successes. There are not many people who have regard or reverence for Napoleon, Hitler or Chingiz Khan. Some regard them as heroes and are completely carried away by their deeds. But can they command true loyalty or obedience? Loyalty and obedience are given only to religious Teachers, such as Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster and the Holy Prophet of Islam. Many millions of human beings throughout the ages have done what these Teachers bade them do. Many millions have denied themselves what these Teachers forbade. Their smallest thoughts, words, and deeds have been subject to what they were taught by their Masters. Do national heroes command even one iota of the loyalty and submission accorded to these Teachers? These Teachers, therefore, were from God and what they taught was taught by God.

Why Teachings of Various Religions Differ

But the question is: If these Teachers were all from God, why did their teachings differ so much one from another? Would God teach different things at different times? Even ordinary mortals try to be consistent and teach the same thing at different times. The answer to this question is that when conditions remain the same, it would be absurd to issue different directions. But when conditions change, variation of teaching is of the essence of wisdom. In the time of the Prophet Adam, it seems, human beings lived together in one part of the world; one teaching, therefore, was enough for them. Possibly even up to Noah’s time they continued to live in this way. According to the Bible, human tribes continued to live together in one part of the world up to Babylonian times. The Bible is not a book of history. But there is evidence which supports the Biblical account.

Among all nations of the world, even among savages inhabiting lonely islands, we find traces of the story of Noah’s Flood. It seems unlikely that the whole of the world was first engulfed in a universal deluge, and then knowledge of it spread in all parts of the world. It seems more likely that in one part of the world there was a deluge which resulted in the dispersion of the population in different directions. If it is not proved that the world was one up to Babylonian times, history lends support to the view that it was one up to Noah’s time. After Noah’s time the population dispersed into different countries. The influence of Noah’s teaching began to decline, because means of communication were so poor. A Teacher in one country could not communicate his Message to other countries. It was but appropriate then that God should have sent a Prophet to each country, so that no country should be without His guidance. This made for division between religion and religion, because the human mind had not yet fully developed. As human intellect and understanding lacked the development to which they were to attain later, every country had a teaching sent to it appropriate to the level of development to which it had attained.

Islam Teaches Oneness of God and of Humanity

But when the human race began to advance and more and more countries began to be inhabited, and distances between them began to be annihilated, and means of communication began to improve, the human mind began to appreciate the need of a universal teaching, covering all the different situations of man. Through mutual contact men came to have insight into the fundamental oneness of the human race and the Oneness of their Creator and Guide. Then in the desert of Arabia, God sent His final Message to mankind through the Holy Prophet of Islam. No wonder, this Message begins by praising God, the Lord of the worlds. It speaks of God to Whom all manner of praise is due, Who sends His sustenance to all peoples and all countries, and in an equitable measure. He is not partial to any country or any people. Therefore the Message which begins thus inevitably ends by invoking the Lord of all mankind, their King and their God. The Prophet who brought this Message was a Second Adam. As in the time of the First Adam there was one revelation and one people, so in the time of this Second Adam the world again had one revelation and became one people. If, therefore, this world has been created by One God, and if God is equally interested in all peoples and all countries, it is imperative that ultimately these different peoples and different religious traditions should unite in one belief and one outlook. If the Quran had not come, the spiritual purpose for which mankind had been created would have been frustrated. If the world cannot be assembled around one spiritual centre, can we ever come to appreciate the Oneness of our Creator? A river has many tributaries but at last it becomes one broad stream and it is then that its might and beauty manifest themselves. The Messages which Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster and other Prophets brought to different parts of the world are like tributaries which arise before a mighty river shapes its course. They were all good and wholesome. But it was necessary that they should flow at last into one river, and demonstrate the Oneness of God and promote the one ultimate purpose for which mankind had been created. If the Quran does not fulfil this purpose, where is the teaching which does? Not the Bible, because the Bible talks only of the God of Israel. Nor Zoroaster’s, because Zoroaster conveys the light of God exclusively to the Iranian people. Nor the Vedas, because the Rishis prescribe the penalty of casting molten lead into the ears of Shudras—India’s original inhabitants—who are bold enough to listen to the Vedic recitation. Nor does the Buddha fulfil this great purpose, because though the faith of the Buddha spread in China after his death, yet his own vision never travelled beyond the confines of India. Nor does the teaching of Jesus fulfil this purpose.

Jesus—Not a Universal Teacher

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.28

What Moses and the earlier Prophets have taught in this respect, we have described already. Christian missionaries have gone to all parts of the world, but Jesus himself had no such plan. The question is not what Christian believers are trying to do. The question is, what was the intention of Jesus himself? What was the design of God Who sent Jesus? This nobody can express better than Jesus himself and Jesus said clearly:

I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.29
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.30

The teaching of Jesus, therefore, is only for Israel, not for others. It is said that Jesus exhorted his followers to go to other people:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.31

But to argue from this that Jesus had commanded his followers to take his Message to peoples other than Israel is not correct. It means only this that the followers of Jesus were commanded by him to preach his Message to all the tribes of Israel and not to all nations and peoples as such. Jesus speaks in clear terms:

Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.32
I am not sent but unto the lost sleep of the house of Israel.33
It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to east it to dogs.34

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.35

Nobody should imagine that the idea here is that Christian preachers should first go to Israelite towns, then to others. For, to go to the lost sheep of Israel does not mean only to visit their towns, but to convert them to Christianity. The idea, therefore, is that until the Israelites have become Christian, no attention is to be paid to others. Jesus makes it quite clear that the task of preaching to Israel and converting them will not be completed until his Second Coming. Thus we read:

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.36

From this it is clear that Matthew 28:19 requires Christian preachers to establish Christianity in the towns of Israel and not merely to visit those towns. It is made quite clear that this duty of preaching to the Israelites will not be over until the Second Coming. In preaching to others, therefore, while the Second Coming of Jesus had yet to take place, Christian preachers are acting against the teaching of Jesus.

The apostles also regard it as incorrect to preach the Gospel to non-Israelites.

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.37

Similarly, when the apostles heard that Peter in one place had preached the Gospel to non-Israelites, they were annoyed:

And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest into men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.38

Before the Holy Prophet of Islam, therefore, nobody addressed a Message to the whole of mankind; before the Quran, no book addressed itself to the whole of humanity. It is the Holy Prophet who declared:

The revelation of the Quran, therefore, was meant to remove those differences and divisions which had come to pass between religion and religion and people and people, and which had first arisen out of the inevitable limitations of earlier teachings. If the Quran had not come, these divisions would have endured. The world would never have known that it had but One Creator, nor would it have realised that its creation had one large purpose in view. Differences between religions prior to Islam seem to require rather than to resist the coming of a Teaching which should unite them all.

The second question is, was not the human mind to undergo the same process of evolution as the human body had already undergone? And just as the human body had ultimately reached a certain stability of form, was not the mind (and soul) of man destined similarly to attain to a stability which was its ultimate end?

Meaning of Civilisation and Culture

In answer to this question we must remember that when we examine retrospectively the civilisation and culture of different countries, we find that there have been many different periods through which those countries have passed. Some of these periods have been so advanced that between them and our time there seems to be little or no difference. If we disregard the mechanical achievements of the modern world, the achievements of some of the earlier periods of human history seem little different from the achievements of our own time. Both in civilisation and culture such similarities exist. But if we go deep enough, we will find two important differences between earlier and modern periods.Before we describe these two differences, we wish to make clear what we understand by civilisation and by culture. According to us, civilisation is a purely materialistic conception. When material progress takes place, there comes about a certain uniformity and a certain ease in human activities. This uniformity and ease constitute civilisation. The output which results from human labour, and the means of transport needed to move this output from place to place constitute an advance in civilisation. Similarly, all the methods which may be invented for the transfer of goods from hand to hand, all the schemes which may be instituted to promote education, industry, scientific research, constitute progress in civilisation. Whatever may be done to maintain internal security and defence against external aggression constitutes civilisation. All these are factors which influence human activities. A country which is advanced in respect of these factors confers upon its inhabitants a pattern of daily life quite different from that of other countries. It is this difference which constitutes a difference of civilisation. In a country not agriculturally advanced the daily food of the inhabitants will be found to be quite different from the daily food of a country advanced in agriculture. An agriculturally advanced country encourages the consumption of many different kinds of foods. It will try to provide for a variety of needs as well as a variety of tastes. But an agriculturally backward country will not be able to provide any such variety. There will be no regard for individual differences in bodily health or refinement of taste. Whatever food the country produces as a whole will be provided, without any or many alternatives. Similarly, an industrially backward country will not be able to compare with an industrially advanced country, in dress, housing and furnishing and in other accessories to comfortable living. The industrially backward country will not be able to provide cloth enough for its inhabitants. The question as to what variety of cut the cloth might be shaped into will not even arise. The people of that country will not even know what a coat is, let alone different kinds of coats appropriate for different occasions. Even a shirt will be a luxury for them. Shoes made of kid skin will be beyond their conception. To insist on footwear made of untanned hide will be something of a luxury. The very idea of footwear will be something uncommon. The inhabitants will usually go barefooted, or they will be quite content with a piece of untanned and unshaped leather tied on their feet. We refer to these matters only incidentally. We cannot go into all the details, but very little detail is needed to prove that such differences in the external pattern of our lives are the result of difference in the degree of advancement which different peoples attain in agriculture, industry, science and education. The differences are so large that those who are used to one kind of living will have no desire to associate with those used to another kind of living. It is these differences which, according to us, constitute differences of civilisation and it is these differences on which the issues of peace and war to a very large extent depend. It is these differences which in the long run give rise to imperialistic designs and lust for power.

Culture is different from civilisation. Culture, in our view, is related to civilisation precisely as the soul of man is related to his body. Differences of civilisation are ultimately differences of material advance; but differences of culture spring from differences of spiritual advance. The culture of a people may be said to consist of those ideas and ideals which grow under the influence of religious or ethical teachings. A religious teaching provides the foundations. Followers of that teaching then build on those foundations. In building on those foundations, the followers may travel far from the original teaching, but they can never completely lose touch with the foundations. A person who executes the plan of a building may deviate as much as he likes from the original plan, yet he cannot ignore the main parts of that plan. In the same way religions and ideologies provide plans of living. What the votaries of those religions and ideologies build on the original plan develops into distinctive patterns of art and morality, so that the observer is bound to put followers of different religions into quite different classes. These differences are differences of culture. Differences of culture have become very important today. To advocate and to claim tolerance and breadth of view is very common today. In spite of this a nominal Christian, otherwise an atheist, will associate far more easily with a bigoted Christian than he will with a nominal Muslim, otherwise an atheist, or with a bigoted Muslim. There is no doubt that in our time political interests also dominate the mutual relations of peoples, and these political interests spring from differences of civilisation. But cultural differences are not less important. A European Muslim is very cordial to an Asiatic Muslim; the cordiality he displays for a fellow Muslim, he never displays for a fellow European. A bigoted European Christian is cordial towards an atheist American. Is this due to strict religious bias? No. If religious bias were the only factor at work, then a Christian would find himself nearer to a Muslim’s heart than to that of an atheist. The truth is that between Christian and Christian, even though one of them be an atheist, there are ties of culture, a Christian culture we may call it. A Christian atheist is no longer Christian in his religious beliefs but his emotions and actions are not free from the influence of Christian culture. Influences which transmit themselves through many generations are not easily obliterated. A Christian artist who may have become an atheist in thought will still display a Christian influence in his paintings and his music. In fact, but for such influence, his art would seem as out of place as thistles in a rose garden.

Different Periods of Civilisation and Culture

We now wish to point out that periods of civilisation and culture come at times in isolation and at times in combination. They come separately at one time and simultaneously at another. Occasionally a nation attains to a great civilisation but not to a great culture; occasionally to a great culture but not to a great civilisation. Rome in its glory was the bearer of a great civilisation; but it had no culture. Its Art and its Philosophy did not spring from any foundational ideology. Every individual was free to grow in his own way and to interpret life without reference to any large and basic principles. During the first few centuries of its existence Christianity gave no civilisation to the world but it gave culture of a very high order, a culture which sprang from a determinate outlook on life and which accordingly had its own characteristic features. Early Christians had their activities rooted in certain principles; their lives were defined by certain limits. These principles and limits were laid down for them by their religious teaching. On the other hand, the principles and limits within which the Roman mind worked were dictated by materialistic urges. In short, early Rome was an excellent example of a civilisation and early Christianity a similar example of culture. Later, in Rome civilisation and culture mingled together. When Rome became Christian, it had both a civilisation and a culture, but its civilisation was subordinate to its culture. At present Europe possesses both a civilisation and a culture but, owing to the dominance of materialistic conceptions, its culture has become subordinate to its civilisation. When we study the history of the world, we find that times during which religion has succeeded in promoting a true philosophy of morals or a true culture seem to have been very similar to our own time. Similarly, times during which a materialistic outlook on life has produced a true civilisation seem to have been very similar to our own. But two differences seem to be outstanding. Civilisations and cultures which arose before the advent of Islam were not universal in their appeal or conception. They were not derived from a universal principle. Religion and civilisation were not like branches shooting out of the same root. If they ever seemed to be so, they lacked true unity. In the Jewish religion, no doubt, an effort has been made to combine civilisation and culture. In the Old Testament, to a very large extent, social ideas and ideals have been combined with material conceptions, and both centre around religion. But this attempt of the Old Testament can be described as a first attempt only and not a finally successful attempt. The same is true of the Hindu and the Zoroastrian religion. The thousand and one needs of human life seem to require an ideology and a system of thought which is elastic enough to serve as a guide for all occasions and all needs. Such an ideology the older religions do not provide. A wooden, inelastic teaching bearing on the needs of civilised society is also offered by them. But the innumerable needs of a wide human society cannot be met by an inelastic system of teaching. What distinguishes man from other animals is the very important fact that human beings, while they are so much alike, are at the same time so very different from one another. The animal world is distinguished by a dead uniformity. Buffaloes, cows, lions, tigers, hawks and fishes, in short, animals and birds whether they live on land, in water or in the air, are all alike in their external appearance as well as in the structure of their brain. They seem to obey one uniform law. But man is different. Human individuals come into the world with the same kind of body. They have the same kind of appearance, and their limbs and sense organs also seem to be very similar. But in respect of their mind and in respect of what they think and feel they are very different from one another. If we must have guidance for all these differently situated and differently constituted human individuals, it must be one, the rigidity of which is tempered by a due degree of flexibility.

Jewish and Christian Cultures

As the world has advanced, it has made effort after effort to approach this ideal. Moses gave to Israel both a religion and a civilisation. But his teaching proved too rigid to answer to that variety of urges of which human nature is capable. As soon as the people of Israel began to think along new channels and to entertain new ideals and objectives and to break new ground, the teaching which Moses had left for them began to fail. Moses did not succeed in making good citizens out of the new generations of Israel. True, they continued to attach themselves to this teaching but they became either rebels or hypocrites. Christianity, therefore, could not but proclaim that the Law was a curse. Christianity was compelled to proclaim this, because it saw that the utterly rigid Law of Moses had made human beings either rebels or hypocrites. The Message of Jesus, however, was delivered many centuries after Moses. The Mosaic Law was like a coat made to the size of a child, which no longer fitted adult Israel. Jesus saw the futility of grown-up and able-bodied adults trying to put on frocks made for little children. The spirit of Jesus rebelled against this. We should rather say that from the depth of Jesus’ heart came the voice of God to say: "This people has gone far ahead of the time when they received their teaching from Moses. This teaching was enough for them as long as they remained in their earlier condition. But now they need a new teaching, a new coat to fit their increased size." But the new teaching which Jesus proposed for Israel or, to be exact, the teaching which Christians coming centuries after Jesus attributed to him, may be summed up in the phrase, "The Law is a curse." There is no doubt that food which is above the digestive capacity of a person is a blight, not a blessing; but it would be wrong to conclude from this that the food as such is a blight and not a blessing. A small coat would seem strange on an able-bodied adult. So would a large coat on the body of a child. A small coat on the body of an adult and a large coat on the body of a child seem strange, but it cannot be said that the coat as such is funny. It seems to us, therefore, that to attribute to Jesus the teaching that "The Law is a curse" is cruel. All that Jesus must have said and meant was that the version of the Mosaic teaching current in the time of Jesus had become a curse for the people of that time. If he meant this, it was but truth. But the followers of Jesus have mutilated this piece of wisdom into something preposterous. In any case, whether Jesus said what we think he said or what Christians mistakenly think he said, there can be no doubt that in his time the human mind had advanced far from what it was in the time of Moses. It needed now a new guidance, a new ethics, a new civilisation and a new culture. But while Israelite Teachers had tied man to a narrowly conceived teaching, Christian Teachers released man from all moral and religious obligations. Mosaic teaching restrained the mind of Israel from advancing beyond Moses’ time, unless it was in the form of rebellion or hypocrisy. Christian teaching made man free from all obligations and induced the belief that the Law of God cannot raise man to any moral height. Man took over from God, as it were, the duty of planning for his salvation. The result was that the very religion which thought that the sacrifice of God was necessary for the salvation of man began to teach that for the moral advance of man the guidance of God was not necessary. We have a complete historic record only of the Israelite religion. Therefore we have taken our example from Israelite history. When a question relates to the end which a process of evolution seeks, we can answer it only by reference to historical records complete in all their stages. The history of the Israelite religion is witness to the fact that the human mind kept on growing for a long time. It traversed stage after stage but did not seem to reach any final end. Similarly, the history of the world is witness to the fact that the human mind has advanced through many periods of social progress, but has still failed to reach the conception of a large human brotherhood. Both lines of evidence seem to point to the fact that the human mind, like the human body, has had to pass through many evolutionary stages. But until the advent of Islam it did not reach any kind of finality in spiritual advance. In passing through different stages of social advance it was not able to rise above the limitations of nation or race and the idea of human equality and human brotherhood did not take root. It passed through many different periods of culture, but did not reach any satisfactory Law, a Law for all mankind. The Mosaic teaching no doubt made an attempt to bring together social and cultural ideals, but after a time it began to fail. It began to fail because what it had offered was not the last word on the subject. Jesus no doubt tried to make a change, but the change did not prove enough, and was not able to stand the tide of rebellion in which the human mind had then become involved. All that survived of the teaching of Jesus is the saying attributed to Christianity that the Law is a curse. This saying, taken in the form in which it occurs, offends the good sense of every thinking person. Unless it is suitably interpreted, the saying is itself a curse because it only serves to turn man away from God and to free him from His guidance. Therefore it seems that the end which the evolution of the human mind was seeking had not yet come. The process and stages through which human civilisation and human culture had passed pointed to the fact that civilisation and culture are subject to the same law of evolution to which the human body was for long subject. It seems certain, therefore, that human civilisation and culture were to attain to an ultimate perfection in the same way in which the human body, after a long process of evolution, had attained to an ultimate perfection of form; and this alone indicates the need of Islam in the presence of other religions, the need of a religion which should provide an end to the evolution of human culture, an end which is embodied in the teaching of the Quran.

A Pertinent Question

The third question, an affirmative answer to which establishes the need of the Quran, is: Had the earlier books come to suffer from defects which called for a new book, which was the Quran?

In answer to this we must remember that the first criterion by which we can measure the usefulness of a book is freedom from external interference. A revealed book is superior to a man-made book because we can assume that the former will not lead us into error. God is sheer guidance. In a book revealed by Him, therefore, we may expect to find only light and truth, no darkness or error. If our conception of God does not imply such a trust in what He reveals, then that conception has no value. If communications from God also can err, then what ground have we for holding divine teaching superior to human teaching? Belief in a book entails belief that that book is free from error. It is possible, however, that a book originally revealed by God may come to suffer from human interference. If the contents of a book have suffered additions and subtractions at human hands, then that book can no longer serve as a guide.

When we examine the earlier revealed books from this point of view, we find them entirely unsatisfying. The followers of the Old Testament regard it as a revealed book. Christians also describe it as a Book of God, and Muslims also think that it was a revelation. But it is one thing for a book to be revealed, and quite another for that book to retain intact its revealed text. No doubt, all the three peoples—Jews, Christians and Muslims, agree that God spoke to the Prophets of the Old Testament. But they no longer believe, and external and internal evidence no longer support the view, that the record of the Old Testament as we possess it today constitutes the word of God as it was first revealed. From the history of Israel we learn that in the time of Nebuchadnezzar the books of Israel were burnt and destroyed. They were rewritten by the Prophet Ezra, and of Ezra we read in Jewish literature:

Ezra re-established the text of Pentateuch, introducing therein the Assyrian or square characters.41

He showed his doubts concerning the correctness of some words of the text by placing points over them. Should Elijah, said he, approve the text, the points will be disregarded; should he disapprove, the doubtful words will be removed from the text.42

From these quotations it is evident that the Torah, in whatever form it existed at the time whether the form which Ezra gave to it or the form which it had received from earlier times—was a very uncertain and unreliable book. Its general text could no longer be regarded as the word of God preserved in pristine purity. The "Book of Ezra" is no longer included in the Bible as we know it today. Yet it is no less reliable than any of the other books of the Bible. It is called the "Greek Book of Ezra." In olden times it was put before the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Later on Jerome, a notable Christian priest who was entrusted by the Pope with the task of editing the Bible, dropped it out of the Bible on the ground that its Hebrew original was no longer available. This book is described, by some as the third book of Ezra and by some as the second book. In any event it seems that though this book was dropped out of the Bible, a great majority of Jews and Christians describe it as the "Book of Ezra". In verses 20-25 of the 14th chapter of this book we read:

Behold, Lord, I will go, as thou hast commanded me and reprove the people which are present: but they that shall be born afterward, who shall admonish them? Thus the world is set in darkness, and they that dwell therein are without light. For thy law is burnt, therefore, no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the works that shall begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live. And he answered me, saying, Go thy way, gather the people together, and say unto them that they seek thee not for forty days. But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly; And come hither, and I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out, till the things be performed which thou shalt begin to write.43

From this it appears that Ezra and the five scribes worked hard for forty days in seclusion and with the help of God composed 204 books. In verse 44 of this very chapter we read:

a) that in the time of the Prophet Ezra, who lived about 450 years before Jesus, the Torah and the books of the other Prophets had become mixed up;
b) that no reliable copy of these books was then in existence;
c) that Ezra wrote down the books again.

True, we are told that the books were revealed. But revealed only means that God helped in their composition. It does not mean that the text, word for word, was revealed by God. We learn from Jewish history that Ezra himself rejected parts of the text on the ground of unreliability, and that he left the final decision about them to Elijah. The Torah as we know it today, therefore, is not the Torah which was revealed to Moses. It is the Torah which Ezra recorded from his memory, and about parts of which he himself was in doubt. We should even say that the present Torah is not even the one which Ezra wrote, for Ezra wrote 204 books, and we do not find 204 books in the Bible.

Of Ezra’s memory, Christian scholars themselves express great doubts. Adam Clark, the well-known commentator of the Bible, says in his commentary (1891), under I Chronicles (7:6), that here Ezra mistakenly writes names of grandsons instead of sons and that to try to reconcile contradictions of this kind is useless (p.168). In 7:6 we read: The sons of Benjamin; Bela and Becher, and Jediael, three; whereas in 8:1 we have: Now Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

Jewish scholars take the view that Ezra did not quite know whether a given person was son or grandson of another person. When this is the view held by Jewish and Christian scholars of Ezra’s memory, how can ordinary Jews and Christians and other ordinary people be satisfied about the spiritual value of a book with as little authority as the Bible?

Let us now pass on to the internal evidence on the point. The most important and the most decisive argument in this connection is provided by Deuteronomy (34:5-6):

So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

These verses show clearly that they were composed and added hundreds of years after the time of Moses. It does not stand to reason that God ever addressed Moses, saying, "Nobody knows about your sepulchre unto this day." Can such words be addressed to a living human being? Can the words "unto this day" be used in a speech addressed to him?

And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.

This verse also shows that it cannot have been revealed to Moses but is a later addition. Then in verse 10 we read:

And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.

This also does not seem to be a revelation of Moses but an invention made many hundreds of years after his death and entered in the Book of Moses. It is possible that it is the work of Ezra, but it may equally be the work of somebody else.

For further internal evidence on the point that the Torah, as we know it, was compiled after the time of Moses, and that it contains the writings of other persons, we should read Genesis 14:14.

And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Compare this passage with Judges 18:27-29, in which it is said that this city which is called Dan in the book of Genesis was first called Laish. About 80 years after Moses this city was conquered by Israel and renamed Dan. We read:

And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people that were as quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no business with any man; and it was in the valley that lieth by Beth-rehob. And they built a city and dwelt therein. And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

The point is that a name which was proposed 80 years after Moses, could not possibly occur in the Book of Moses. It is quite clear, therefore, that the Book of Moses had additions made to it after his death and many writers entered in it their own thoughts and speculations.

This sort of editing is not confined to the Book of Moses. Other books of the Bible also suffer the same fate.

And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being an hundred and ten years old.

From these quotations it is quite obvious that the book of Joshua was not recorded by Joshua and the book of Job was not recorded by Job. They were instead the compilations of persons who came later, and who compiled these books from what they heard from other people. It is possible also that the Prophets whose teachings are recorded in the Bible collected the word of God as it was received by them, but the records left by them could not endure the ravages of time, and when they became extinct the people who came after wrote them again from their memory, and in doing so entered many of their own thoughts and judgements into them. Is it any wonder that these books, which on historical as well as on their own internal evidence are maimed and mutilated, ceased to give satisfaction to their readers? Is it any wonder that therefore, God also withdrew His protection from them so that mankind began to look and long for a book which should be free from and immune to all kinds of human interference? If even after these books had become contaminated, God had not revealed to the world a book which could be regarded as the very word of God, and protection of which from human interference could not be doubted, then we would have had to admit that God is not concerned to guide man and that He sows the seed of faith not in the soil which brings forth certainty and conviction but in the soil which brings forth uncertainty and doubt and that He wishes to confer upon belief not even the measure of certainty which disbelief enjoys. But can we entertain such a thought? Is it worthy of God? If it is not true, and it certainly is not true, that God is not concerned to guide man, then we have to look for the book which superseded the Bible and replaced this garbled and interpolated version of the word of God.

Contradictions in the Old Testament

Further internal evidence bearing on the proposition that books of the Bible no longer reproduce the original revelation is provided by the contradictions which exist between different parts of its text.

So God created man in his own image. And further on in 2:17 we read: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.

These two quotations are contradictory. If they are to be reconciled, we have to assume that even God is ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil. Because Adam being the image of God, if he was ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil, then God also will have to be assumed as devoid of the power of discriminating good from evil, the possession of which, in fact, constitutes the highest divine attribute. All other attributes are subordinate to it. If man was incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, he was incapable of anything worthy. What is worthy and valuable is that which is done intentionally and out of full consciousness. What is done unintentionally and unconsciously is not morally valuable. If man is incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, then he is not a moral being, being unable either to choose good or to avoid evil.

Is God also devoid of this moral attribute according to Jewish and Christian scholars? Does not God know what is good and what is evil? If He does not know this, then why does He send the Prophets, and what does He seek to teach through them? Is not God concerned to establish good and to destroy evil? If we forget for the moment that the very object for which man has been created is that he should know good from evil, and if this knowledge is forbidden to him, then what need was there to create him? If man could not have knowledge of good and evil, how could he be said to have been made in the image and likeness of God? Without an insight into moral facts and moral distinctions man could not reproduce any likeness of God. If man was the image of God, it is wrong to think that he was forbidden to go near the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If he was forbidden to go near the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then it is wrong to say that God created man in His own image.

For in the day that thou eatest thereof (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) thou shalt surely die.

And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This verse can mean only one of two things either that there was one tree which was capable of giving life as well as the knowledge of good and evil; or that there were two trees, one with life-giving powers and the other which gave the knowledge of good and evil. If, according to the verse, there was but one tree, then Genesis 2:17 is proved false, because verse 9 endows the tree with life-giving powers, not with death-like properties. If, according to Genesis, there were two trees and not one, then these two verses become contradictory. If Adam had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, death was not inevitable, because he could also have eaten of the life-giving tree. In fact, according to the Bible, when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge he could also have eaten of the life-giving tree. If the consequence of eating the fruit of one tree was certain death, the consequence of eating the fruit of the other tree was eternal life. The situation in which Adam was placed is hard to understand; one tree offered him eternal life, another offered death.

We know from the Bible that Adam and his wife ate of the tree of life. We read in Genesis 3:2-3:

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

From these verses it appears that Adam and his wife ate the fruit of all trees except the tree of knowledge. If this account of the Bible is true, then Adam and his wife certainly ate the fruit of the tree of life, and if they did eat of this tree of life, how could they die? Yet we read in Genesis 3:22:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

This verse shows that Adam had eaten nothing of the tree of life, and it is impossible for us to determine which of the verses is true. Is it the one which says that Adam did not eat of the tree of life or the one in which Adam’s wife is reported to have said that, except the tree of knowledge, they ate of all the trees in the garden? Nor is it possible for us to say whether eating of the tree of knowledge results in certain death or eating of the tree of life results in eternal life.

All these statements contradict one another, and the word of God cannot contain such contradictions. It is certain that these statements were added to the Bible by writers who entertained contradictory ideas. A book which contains such contradictory statements cannot be attributed to an ordinary rational human being, much less to God. But Moses was an honoured Prophet of God, and the Torah was certainly a revelation of God received by him. We have, therefore, to assume that those contradictions are later additions. Because of them, no blame attaches to God or to Moses. Only we must say that when God decided to replace the Bible by a book of lasting value, He withheld His protection from the Bible and it was no longer safe from human interference and from the ravages of time.

And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, and by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

The contradiction between these two passages is obvious. The passage from Exodus says that the name Jehovah was first revealed to Moses. Before his time no Prophet, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, had his name revealed to him. But the passage from Genesis says that this name was revealed even to Abraham and that he named a mount after it Jehovah-jireh.

And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the first day of the fifth month.

And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera; there Aaron, died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son…

It is evident that one and the same person could not die in two different places. There can be no doubt that these two contradictory passages were entered in the Bible by two different scribes who have written down their own speculations in it and presented them as the word of God.

Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The Lord hath not chosen these. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.

This contradiction also shows that historians of different persuasions have entered their views into the Bible, so that the Bible, as we know it today, cannot be regarded as a Book of God preserved in its original purity.

....and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

The same book describes Michal as childless in one place and the mother of five sons in another.

7) Similarly in II Chronicles 21:19-20 we read that king Jehoram ascended the throne at the age of 32, reigned for 8 years; remained dethroned for two years: and then died of some fearful disease, i.e. he lived altogether for 42 years. But in the same book (22:1-2) we read:

And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

The first passage states quite clearly that Jehoram was 42 years of age at the time of his death. But the second passage asserts that the youngest son of Jehoram, Ahaziah, was also 42 when he ascended the throne on the death of his father. Were father and son of the same age and were the other sons of Jehoram, who were killed in battle by the Arabians, older than their father? Can any rational human being make these contradictory statements? The father dies at the age of 42 years and his youngest son of the same age becomes king after him. Such statements will not be found even in an ordinary book, let alone a book revealed by God. There can be no doubt that these contradictions did not exist in the original revelation. They were not to be found in the utterances of the Prophets. Being contradictions they cannot be attributed to a single author. We have to assume that many authors entered their thoughts into the Book of God, hoping to have them treated as revelations. One author believed that Jehoram was 42 years of age when he died; so he wrote accordingly. Another thought that Jehoram was 100 years of age at the time of his death, and at that time his youngest son was 42 years of age; so he wrote accordingly. These statements are contradictory. We have to admit that the writer who believed that Jehoram died at 42 did not believe his son Ahaziah to be also 42 at the time of his father’s death, but possibly only 14 or 15. We have also to admit that the writer who believed Ahaziah to be 42 years of age at the time of his enthronement did not believe that his father at that time was also 42 years of age. The question is, what spiritual benefit can accrue from such a book? What faith or trust can such a book inspire in its readers? If the claim had been that the Torah is a collection of statements made by many hundreds of thousands of Jewish writers, even then the book would have possessed some value. But we find that, on the one hand, this book is offered as the very word of God, and that, on the other, it contains thousands of contradictions. This unwarranted claim on behalf of the Bible takes away even such value as it would have possessed, had no such claim been made on its behalf. Such a book cannot serve as a guide, and who can say that after such a book we did not need another?

Savage Teaching of the Old Testament

Not only are there contradictions; we also find that occasionally the most savage teaching is attributed to the Bible, a teaching which cannot be attributed to a Beneficent and Merciful God.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

How severe is this teaching on slaves. A cruel man belabours his slave or bondwoman so much that the victim dies after one or two days. Yet the Bible does not award any punishment to this cruel man because slaves and bondwomen are their master’s property. Could such a teaching endure for all time? Was it not deserving of supersession by a teaching which was to abolish the institution of slavery, which was to restrain the masters of human slaves from being cruel to them? This teaching was no doubt provided by Islam. Not only did Islam lay down laws for the abolition of slavery but also laid down the rule that slaves and bondwomen who failed to obtain their liberty were not to be treated harshly. On one occasion Abu Mas‘ud Ansari was beating a slave of his. From behind he heard a voice saying, “Abu Mas‘ud, the power which God has over you is much greater than the power which you have over this slave." Abu Mas‘ud turned back and saw the Holy Prophet approaching. His whip dropped out of his hand. He said, "O Prophet of God, I free this slave in the name of God". And the Prophet replied, "Had you not done so, the fire of Hell would have scorched your face.”45

Similarly, another Companion of the Prophet says, “We were seven brothers and we had one bondwoman. The youngest of us gave her a slap on the face. The Holy Prophet on hearing of this ordered the release of this bondwoman, because he said, a master who beats his slave is not fit to keep one.”46

The Holy Prophet himself set a high example in this respect. On the occasion of his first marriage, his wife Khadijah made over to him all her property including all her slaves. The Prophet declared that he could not make a human being his slave and, saying this, he set at liberty all the slaves he had received as a present from his wife, and during the rest of his life he never kept a slave.

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

How irrational is this teaching and how unjust if witchcraft here only means tricks performed by a class of professional entertainers? We should regard it as an innocent calling. In the busy and anxious lives that men often lead, fun and amusement provide welcome relief. It is then that these professional entertainers divert attention from serious pursuits to their own feats. To regard this innocent calling punishable with death is unjust. If magic and witchcraft call up the mystery man of fairy tales who transforms a man into a bull, a woman into a bird, then this teaching of the Bible is both stupid and savage. Such mystery men have never existed, and to accuse anybody of such impossible powers and then to order his death is extreme savagery.

And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.

About a vanquished enemy how cruel is this teaching. To put to death all members of the enemy after their defeat, not to enter into any understanding with them and to refuse to show any mercy to them may be the conduct of cruel earthly kings. It cannot be attributed to a Beneficent and Merciful God.

Certainly such teaching must have been invented by unrelenting Jews who came after Moses and entered this teaching into the Bible and made it so foul.

Irrational Teaching of the Old Testament

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

In Genesis 46:27 we read that the number of the Israelites when they entered Egypt was three score and ten but 215 years later, that is to say in the time of Moses, they had multiplied so much that the adult males alone numbered six hundred thousand. In Exodus 12:37 this is the claim made:

And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men beside children.

If, keeping in view the adult male population, we estimate the strength of the whole population, it turns out to be approximately 2,500,000. But it would be a great exaggeration and against all reasonable probability. In 215 years a group of 70 souls could not grow into 2,500,000. Historical facts also are against this estimate. When Moses migrated from Egypt to Canaan and had to go into the wilderness for 40 years, what did this large population of 2,500,000 live on? Could they have found in the wilderness food and drink enough to keep them alive for 40 long years? True, as the Bible says, they had quails and honey-dew sent to them from heaven. But even according to the Bible this sustenance from heaven descended only occasionally. How then did this large population obtain their food when it did not descend from heaven?

We also learn from the Bible that the tribes obtained water each from one spring. But can we believe that 2,500,000 souls could obtain water enough for their needs from a few springs. The lands through which they passed contain no streams or rivulets. There are springs here and there, but a spring does not have any large dimensions. How can springs provide water for 2,500,000 souls? A book which contained such irrational statements could not satisfy human intellect. No doubt it was a book from God. It was written by His Prophets. But it has lost its original character. It has become mutilated and has been changed out of all recognition. To regard a book which has suffered in this way as the very word of God is to invite ridicule against God and religion. It was but necessary that after such a book we should have had another which should be free from human interference and immune to irrational interpolation. About the number of Israel the Quran comes to our rescue and points out the truth. It says:

Dost thou not know of those who went forth from their homes, and they were thousands, fearing death.47

According to the Quran the people of Israel who fled from Egypt for fear of Pharaoh numbered a few thousand, and this seems but true because 2,500,000 Jews could not live in fear of small Palestinian tribes. In the best of days Palestine did not have a population of more than two or three million. Even modern Palestine has a population between a million and a million and a half. Any proposed additions to this population are resented intensely by the Arabs. In ancient times transport of food was unknown. Large populations could not be supported by lands which had no produce of their own. The population of Palestine could not be more than a few thousand. In the chronicles of wars between Israelites and their enemies their number did not amount to more than a few hundred or a few thousand. If Moses led 2,500,000 Israelites into Palestine, then quite apart from the days in the wilderness, even in normal times, food enough for such large numbers could not be found. As for the opposition this large population confronted in Palestine, no war was needed to put an end to it. Their large numbers were enough to drive out the original population.

And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden ear-rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden ear-rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf, and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, tomorrow is a feast to the Lord. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

It is inconceivable, however, that a person who has heard the voice of God should begin to attribute Godly powers to others. One who sees an elephant cannot regard it as a rat. One who sees the sun cannot regard it as a candle. A man who sees another man cannot regard him as a worm. No more is it possible for a Prophet who has seen God and heard His voice to regard a calf of gold as God. Such misjudgement we do not expect even from an insane person, let alone a Prophet of God. The rank and file of Israel were pardonable. They had not seen God nor had they heard His voice. They had heard only Moses and Aaron speak to them and had come to believe in what they heard. So they accepted whatever Samiri taught them about the golden calf. It is impossible, however, to exonerate Aaron. He had seen God and had heard His voice. How could he be fooled by Samiri and come to regard as God a calf of gold made by human hands? Is it possible that the Omniscient God Who knows the inmost secrets of human hearts could have appointed for the reformation of Israel a man who was destined to prove as weak as Aaron did according to this account? Even ordinary kings are capable of selecting good generals and viceroys, and it redounds to their credit if they do so; yet no king can read the hearts of his generals. But according to the Bible, God knows all secrets and knows more than any man or any king. Yet He chose Aaron and entrusted to him the task of reforming the people and spoke to him and revealed Himself to him. But when Samiri presented his ungodly teaching to Aaron, Aaron submitted himself to this teaching and on a suggestion by his people made a calf of gold, placed it on an eminence and declared it to be their god! Aaron forgot the true God for fear of his people, forgot what he had been charged with teaching, forgot his duty, forgot all his wisdom and, like an ignorant and superstitious man, began to bow his head before a lifeless object. Those who entered their speculations into the Bible must have possessed feeble minds. But the fact that they thought that those who came later would not be able to detect these interpolations defeats comprehension. It remains true, however, that after such serious interferences the Torah could not retain the status of a revealed book. It needed another book to bring out its absurdities and reassure the world that Aaron was not an ungodly or a superstitious person. That book is the Quran. It exonerated Aaron of the charge of ungodliness. Instead of being ungodly himself, he restrained his people from this foul tendency. We read in the Quran:

And Aaron had said to them before: O my people, you have only been tried by means of it (the calf), and surely the Gracious God is your Lord; so follow me and obey my command.48

From this it is evident that even before Moses returned from Mount Sinai, Aaron had warned the Israelites that the calf of gold had been set up to mislead them, that the Lord was the God Who had provided them with all the goods of life even before they were born. He had told them that the calf had been made before their very eyes. It was up to them, therefore, to follow Aaron, to obey him and to shun all forms of ungodliness.

It is up to all reasonable persons to consider whether the book revealed to Moses should continue to command our faith, when it begins to contradict established truths and to inculcate irrational beliefs. Should we not look for a book which should tell us the truth about events of the time of Moses, even though it should come two thousand years after him.

This seems like magic. Such an account is worthy of stories told to children about ghosts and fairies. They have no place in a Book of God. The account which the Quran has given of this incident steers clear of all superstition. It says:

She was not converted into a pillar of salt or any such thing. Only she refused to go with Lot and sacrificed love of God to love of relations.

In the Quran are narrated events belonging to the time of Moses. The present Torah narrates them in a wrong manner but the Quran, coming two thousand years later, is able to correct these narratives. The errors which the Quran points out are readily acknowledged by reason.

Prophets Defamed by the Bible

There have also crept into the Bible statements which are immoral in their import. It seems impossible to attribute actions reported in them either to God or to His Prophets,

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

This account presents Noah in a most unbecoming manner. According to it Noah planted a vineyard, drank the wine, was undressed in his tent, his son Ham saw him naked and told his brothers about it. The account is wholly uncomplimentary to Noah, and yet of Noah we read in Genesis 6:9.

It is inconceivable that such a man would commit the indecency of becoming undressed before his own children. Then it offends our moral judgement to think that the indecency should be committed by Noah but curses should be heaped upon Ham, Ham’s fault, even according to the Biblical account, was to see his father undressed and yet he hardly could do otherwise. When he found his father drunken and naked, he could not possibly avoid seeing him as such and yet according to the Bible Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan.”50

Actually Canaan is not to blame at all. Canaan was the son of Ham who committed the unavoidable indecency of seeing his naked father. Yet Noah had not a word to say in condemnation of Ham. He curses Canaan, who is not to blame at all. Is it because Ham was his son and Canaan his grandson! Such conduct offends our moral consciousness and cannot be attributed to a Prophet. To attribute it to a Prophet is a matter of shame for one who makes the attempt. We can well understand, however, that these things were not revealed to Moses by God, nor did Moses have them written down in his book. Jewish scholars who describe Prophets as thieves and robbers must have entered these things into the Book of Moses as a cover for their own sins. Their unholy interference with a Book of God made it necessary that God should reveal another book which should be free from the absurdities and falsehoods which had crept into the old.

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

No comment is necessary on this terrible narrative. It offends our sense both of the factual and the moral. But the present Torah does not hesitate to attribute this to a Prophet. From this we have to conclude that the Torah, as we know it today, is not the Torah revealed to Moses. It must have been composed later by Jewish scholars at a time when they had developed hatred for the sons, real or supposed, of Lot, Moab and Ammon. The faith of these Jewish scholars had become so weak, their hearts had become so hardened that to defame Moab and Ammon they did not hesitate to attribute to the Prophet Lot conduct which is reprehensible in the extreme and the attribution of which to any Prophet is entirely intolerable. Is the Christian and the Jewish world today prepared to hear such things attributed to the Prophets of God? If they are, it is only further evidence that we should have had a book which corrected the depraved mentality of our day.

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, and his name be not put out of Israel.

This teaching is ridiculous and depraved in the extreme. It allows a widow to submit to her husband’s brother and bear children who should succeed in the name of the deceased. Can children produced by one person perpetuate the name of another? If children born to one’s brother can perpetuate one’s name, what need is there for the brother to have marital relations with one’s widow? If a brother’s son can be treated as one’s own son, there is no need to allow the brother to have immoral relations with one’s wife. Far better would it have been for the Bible to declare that of the sons of the brother one may be attributed to the dead brother. This would have been reasonable enough. But it seems that as Jewish scholars invented a foul accusation against Lot, so God made them enter into the Torah an injunction the effects of which should recoil upon the Jewish scholars who had tried to defame Prophet Lot. God’s vengeance was dire but well deserved. Jewish women were led by injunctions invented by Jewish scholars to do what Jewish doctors had attributed to Lot. These defects of the Old Testament clearly point to the need of a perfect book which should be free from these defects, and that book is the Quran.

The New Testament Examined

We have seen that the Old Testament has suffered interpolations and changes in form as well as matter. It is possible no longer to use it as a guide. Let us turn now to an examination of the New Testament.

The books collected into the New Testament do not constitute the utterances of Jesus nor of his disciples. Jesus was a Jew and so were his disciples. If any of Jesus’ utterances were to be found preserved in their originality, they could only be in the Hebrew language. So also with the utterances of his disciples. But no copy of the New Testament in ancient Hebrew exists in the world. The old copies are all in Greek. Christian writers try to cover this grave defect by saying that in the time of Jesus the language in general use was Greek. This is impossible for more reasons than one. Nations do not easily give up their language. It is for them as valuable an inheritance as any property or other possession. In Eastern Europe there are people who for three or four hundred years have lived under Russian rule, but their languages remain intact to this day. France has ruled over Morocco and Spain over Algiers for a long time. Yet the language of these subject peoples is still Arabic. Two thousand years have passed since the time of Jesus. Yet the Jews have not forgotten their language. Even today in parts of Europe and America, Jews speak Yiddish, a corrupt form of ancient Hebrew. If this long time spent amongst other peoples has not destroyed the Jewish language, could a brief association with the Romans destroy it? Let us remember that Roman rule in Palestine had begun only about 50 years before the advent of Jesus. This is not long enough for a people to forget their language. But there are other important considerations also to be kept in view:

i) Nations which attain to any importance in history do not give up their language, and the Jews were a very important people indeed.

ii) The religion of the Jews was recorded in Hebrew, and for this reason particularly, it was impossible for them to give up their language.

iii) In the scale of civilisation and refinement, the Jews did not regard themselves as inferior to the Romans, but rather superior, and this must have made them proud of their language and reluctant to give it up.

iv) The Jews entertained hope for the return of their political power. Nations which fear the future become pessimistic and therefore tend to lose pride in their language. But the Jews in the time of Jesus were awaiting the advent of their King who was to re-establish Jewish rule. Looking forward to such a future, they could not have been so negligent in protecting their language.

v) Jewish authors of that time wrote in their own language or in some corrupt form of it. If their language had changed, we should have had books of the time written in a language other than Hebrew.

vi) The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. But in the time of Jesus, the Roman Empire had not become divided into two halves. The centre of the Empire was still Rome. The Roman and Greek languages are very difficult. If Roman influence had at all penetrated Jewish life, it should have resulted in the assimilation of Latin (and not Greek) words into the Hebrew language. Yet the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels are all in Greek. This proves that the Gospels were written down at a time when the Roman Empire had become divided and its eastern possessions had become part of the Greek Empire, so that the Greek language had begun to exert its influence on Christianity and its literature.

vii) Phrases such as the following which are preserved in the Gospels in their original form are all Hebrew phrases.

1) “Hosanna;”51
2) “Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani;”52
3) “Rabbi;”53
4) “Talitha cumi;”54

viii) From The Acts (2:4-13) it appears that even after the crucifixion, Jews spoke Hebrew:

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we, every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and in strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

It is evident that at this time the language spoken in Palestine was Hebrew. Speaking any other language was extraordinary. Among the names mentioned is Rome, which means that the Roman language was not spoken in Palestine and whoever spoke it seemed a stranger. We are not concerned here with the merits of the narrative but we only wish to point out that this passage from The Acts proves conclusively that even after the crucifixion the language of the Jews was Hebrew. Those who knew other languages were exceptions. When some of the disciples spoke these other languages—among them Latin, some people thought they were drunk and talking nonsense. If the country as a whole used Roman or Greek, no such reaction was possible.

It is clear, therefore, that the language which Jesus and his disciples spoke was Hebrew, not Latin or Greek. So copies of the New Testament written down in Latin or Greek must have been written down long after the time of Jesus, at a time when Christianity had begun to penetrate into Roman territory and Roman imperialist power had become divided into the Italian and Greek parts. Books of this kind, composed 100 or 200 years after Jesus by unknown authors and attributed by them to Jesus and his disciples, can be of little use to any believer today. It was necessary, therefore, that we should have had another book sent to us from Heaven, free from these defects and one which readers could regard with certainty as the very word of God.

Jesus’ Own Admission

Jesus declares clearly that he had come not to destroy but to fulfil the older books.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

From this it is evident that the mission of Jesus was to restore Mosaic teaching, but the New Testament as we have it today teaches that the Mosaic teaching was abrogated completely by Jesus. It is quite clear, therefore, that the present New Testament is not what Jesus taught and preached. The teaching of Jesus must have been a reproduction of the teaching of Moses, except for what the Scribes and Pharisees had themselves added to it. But the New Testament seeks to correct not only what the Scribes and Pharisees had invented but also what Moses and subsequent Prophets had taught in their time. This position is contradictory. One part of the New Testament teaches one thing, another part quite another. When a book contradicts itself, it cannot be the work of the same author, at any rate, of a sane author. The books of the New Testament are said to have been dictated by the disciples of Jesus, and we cannot say that the disciples were not sane. The great disciples of Prophets always possess a high degree of sanity. We must, therefore, conclude that the disciples did not dictate any such thing. They talked as they went about. Those who heard them passed on the substance of what they heard to others. When these others sat down to record what they had heard, they added many of their own thoughts. The result was the New Testament as we know it today, a bundle of contradictions.

Testimony of Christian Scholars

After citing the internal evidence on the confused character of the New Testament, we cite the testimony of Christian scholars:

i) In the commentary of the Bible by Horn (1882) we have that the facts relating to the composition of the Gospels, which have reached us from the ancient historians of the Church, are so uncertain and so slender that no definite conclusion can be drawn from them. Even the best authorities seem to accept as gospel truth the speculations current in their time, and, out of sheer reverence, those who come after accept their authority. The narratives, partly false and partly true, pass from one writer to another and after a time begin to be treated as though they were above criticism.55

ii) In the same volume we have that the first Gospel seems to have been recorded in the year 37 or 38 or 41 or 43 or 48 or 61-62 or 64 A.D.; the second at any time from 56 to 65 A.D., probably between 60 and 63; the third in 53 or 63 or 64; and the fourth in 68 or 69 or 70 or 97 or 98 A.D. The evidence with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James and the Epistle of Jude, the Revelation of St. John the divine and the first Epistle of John, is so confused that we had better not speak of it. These have been attributed to the disciples without any sound reasons.

iii) Eusebius in his History of the Church writes that the first Epistle of Peter is genuine. His second Epistle has never been part of the Holy Book, but has been current in reading.56

iv) In the same book (ch.25) we read that the Epistle of James and the Epistle of Jude and the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third Epistles of John have all been held in great doubt. It is not known whether these were composed by the writers of the Gospels or by others with their names.

The NT was written by Christians for Christians; it was moreover written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and the style of writing (with the exception, possibly, of the Apocalypse) was that of current literary composition. There has been no real break in the continuity of the Greek-speaking Church and we find accordingly that few real blunders of writing are met with in the leading types of the extant texts. This state of things has not prevented variations; but they are not for the most part accidental. An overwhelming majority of the “various readings” of the MSS of the NT were from the very first intentional alterations. The NT in very early times had no canonical authority, and alterations and additions were actually made where they seemed improvements.

That is to say, the New Testament was written by Christians for Christians. Moreover, it was written in Greek for Greek-speaking peoples, and the style was in keeping with current taste. There has been no break in the continuity of the Greek-speaking Church. There are, therefore, no serious errors of transcription in the current versions, though we cannot say there are not contradictions. The contradictions, however, are not accidental, but deliberate. It seems that from the very beginning some authors entered these alterations into the text of the New Testament. The truth seems to be that the New Testament in the beginning was not regarded seriously as a revealed book. Improvements were, therefore, made unhesitatingly wherever these seemed possible.

What is certain is that by the middle of the fourth century, Latin biblical MSS exhibited a most confusing variety of text, caused at least in part by revision from later Greek MSS as well as by modifications of the Latin phraseology. This confusion lasted until all the 'Old Latin' texts were supplanted by the revised version of Jerome (383-400 A.D.) which was undertaken at the request of Pope Damasus and ultimately became the Vulgate of the Western Church.57

What is absolutely certain, is, that in the middle of the fourth century, the Latin copy of the Bible was in a most confused state. The confusion was the result of a comparison with the Greek copy and of a change in Latin terminology. These confusions remained until Jerome’s revised version, prepared under orders of the Pope between 383 and 400 A.D., took the place of the old Latin version among Christians.

More important than these external matters are the variations which in course of time crept into the text itself. Many of these variations were mere slips of the eye, ear, memory, or judgement on the part of a copyist, who had no intention to do otherwise than follow what lay before him. But transcribers, and especially early transcribers, by no means aimed at that minute accuracy which is expected of a modern critical editor. Corrections were made in the interest of grammar or of style. Slight changes were adopted in order to remove difficulties, additions came in, especially from parallel narratives in the Gospels, citations from the Old Testament were made more exact or more complete. That all this was done in perfect good faith, and simply because no strict conception of the duty of a copyist existed, is especially clear from the almost entire absence of deliberate falsification of the text in the interests of doctrinal controversy. It may suffice to mention, in addition to what has been already said, that glosses, or notes originally written on the margin, very often ended by being taken into the text, and that the custom of reading the Scriptures in public worship naturally brought in liturgical additions, such as the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer; while the commencement of an ecclesiastical lesson torn from its proper context had often to be supplemented by a few explanatory words, which soon came to be regarded as part of the original.58

It appears from what we have already seen, that a considerable portion of the NT is made up of writings not directly apostolic.59

Yet, as a matter of fact, every book in the NT, with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul, is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these.60

x) The New Testament is not free even today from interpolations and alterations. As examples we have the following:

Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, said he unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

For hundreds of years we had this account reproduced in the Gospels. Nobody ever thought that it was unreliable. But when there began controversies between the Muslims and the Christians in the nineteenth century, verse 4 and part of v. 3 were deleted from the above passage in the Revised Version published in 1881, out of fear of Muslim criticism, and it was noted on the margin that many ancient authorities insert, wholly, or in part, the words deleted from the text. The question is, when this portion was found in many ancient authorities, why was the change made. Moreover, the very fact that a certain verse is found in certain copies and is missing in others is a proof of the fact that the original text has been tampered with. There can be only two alternatives. Either we will have to admit that the verse was not found in the original text. In that case, we will have to conclude that certain scribes took the liberty of introducing the words on their own account. Or we will have to admit that the verse did exist in the original text. In that case we will have to infer that certain scribes intentionally expunged the verse from the text. In both cases the text will be considered as having been tampered with.

For there are three (that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one and there are three) that bear witness (in earth), the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The above passage formed part of the New Testament for centuries, but when the Christians entered into conflict with the Muslims and the latter began to hurl attacks at such passages, the former altered the text of their sacred Scriptures and the words within brackets were expunged from the Revised Version published in 1881. Now the question is; if the words so expunged did not form part of the original text and were introduced into the text by somebody, it means that in 1881 Christian scholars admitted that Christian Scriptures had been subject to interpolations. But if the old copies were correct and the present change has been made in the text for expediency’s sake, it means that process of tampering with the Christian Scriptures still continued.

And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for oft times he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then, Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Christian exponents seem to be convinced that after faith in Jesus, nothing further is required in the way of good works, to attain the pleasure and love of God. But from the passage of Matthew quoted above it appears that this great end cannot be achieved except by prayer and fasting. Prayer and fasting, therefore, are important instruments for the assimilation of the grace of God. Because the disciples of Jesus did not make use of these instruments, they were unable, according to the Gospel narrative, to cast out a bad spirit, in spite of the fact that they had declared faith in Jesus. Muslim critics used this passage for a vital criticism. They said that mere faith in Jesus was not enough. Good works were also necessary and Jesus himself had stressed the importance of prayer and fasting, and had made use of them as instruments of spiritual advancement. If prayer and fasting were also necessary, then faith in Jesus could not be enough, and could not release man from the obligation to do good. This criticism was so vital that Christian exponents found themselves unable to give any reply. The only way of escape they found was in deleting the verse from the Gospel. Accordingly, in the Revised Version of the Gospel according to Matthew, we do not find this verse at all. The whole verse has been deleted and it has been proved that the Gospel text is still subject to human interference.

It is said that in Mark (9:29) the word “prayer” is still retained; and that if the change had been made from any bad motive, the word “prayer” should not have been retained in Mark. But this plea does not hold good. Muslim criticism was not based on the word “prayer”, for prayer is still offered by Christians. The objection was based on the word “fasting”. The verse that has been deleted showed that Jesus was in the habit of fasting and that he looked upon fasting as necessary for spiritual advancement, so the Law could not be regarded as a curse. In order to avoid this criticism, the whole verse was deleted from Matthew and the word “fasting” was deleted from Mark. It is also possible that one party of the revisers thought it necessary to omit the whole verse, while another party thought it sufficient to omit only the word “fasting”.

Contradictions in the New Testament

Then there are contradictions in the Gospel accounts and such contradictions also prove that the Gospels do not constitute a revelation of God or that human interference has changed the original revelation out of all recognition. Any ordinary author possessing an ordinary measure of consistency will not allow contradictions in what he writes. How then can we tolerate contradictions in a Book of God? We give here some examples:

i) With regard to the birth of Jesus we find from Matthew (1:1-22) and Luke (1:32-33) that the Messiah was to be one of ordinary human beings. Only, he was to be called son of God. From the Gospel of John (1:1), however, we find that the Messiah is the word which was ever with God and was, in fact, God, so that all have been made out of him.

ii) From Matthew (3:13-17), Mark (1:9-12) and Luke (3:21, 22 and 4:1) it appears that Jesus received baptism from John and after receiving baptism from him, he left him at once or on the same day. But in the Gospel of John there is no mention of any baptism and the meeting between Jesus and John is said to have lasted two days.

iii) From John (1:19-44) it appears that Jesus after remaining with John and his disciples for a few days went straight to Galilee. But from Matthew (4:1), Mark (1:12) and Luke (4:1), it appears that Jesus, after receiving baptism from John, went to the woods to have a trial of strength with Satan, and remained there for 40 days.

iv) From John (1:35-51) it appears that, soon after meeting John, Jesus made two of John’s disciples, one Andrew and the other un-named, his own disciples and on the way to Galilee he made Simon Peter and Nathanael his disciples. But from Matthew (4:12-22), Mark (1:12-20) and Luke (4:14-15; 5:1-11) it appears that, after meeting John and remaining for 40 day in the woods Jesus fasted, and on hearing of the imprisonment of John went to Galilee, and preached there in many places and for many days, and beside the lake at Galilee he admitted Simon Peter, Andrew, John and James as his disciples. That is to say, the place where, according to the Gospel of John, these persons were admitted as his disciples by Jesus is not the place where, according to the other Gospels, the admission of these disciples took place. The time also at which the admission took place according to John is not the time given by the other Gospels. The other Gospels put the time about two months later.

v) In John (4:3 and 43-45) we are given to understand that the native place of Jesus was Judaea, and that Jesus, believing that a Prophet is not honoured in his native place, left it for Galilee where he was much honoured. But, in contradiction to this, in Matthew (13:54-58), Luke (4:24) and Mark (6:4) we are told that the native place of Jesus was not Judaea but Galilee. Not honoured in Galilee, he said, no Prophet had been honoured in his own place.

vi) In John (3:22-26 and 4:1-3) we are told that even before John was put in prison, Jesus had started preaching his Message and baptizing people. But in Matthew (4:12-17) and Mark (1:14-15), we are told that Jesus started preaching after John’s imprisonment.

vii) According to Luke (3:23) Joseph, the husband of Mary, was the son of Heli; but according to Matthew (1:16) he was the son of Jacob.

viii) According to Luke (3:31) Jesus descended from David through Nathan but Matthew (1:6) traces the ancestry of Jesus through Nathan’s brother, Solomon the King.

ix) In the genealogy given by Matthew we have from Joseph to Abraham 41 persons, but in the genealogy given by Luke we have 56 persons. Besides this, the names also in the two genealogies do not correspond.

x) In Luke (24:50-51) we are told that Jesus was carried up into heaven at Bethany. But in The Acts (1:12) we read that the ascension took place on a mount called Olivet.

xi) Luke (24:21-29, 36 and 51) says that on the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, or the night following, he ascended to the sky. But in The Acts (1:3) we read that Jesus ascended to the sky 40 days after he rose from the dead.

xii) In Matthew (10:10) we read that Jesus told his disciples to provide “nor script for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes nor yet staves”, but Mark (6:8-9) says that Jesus told his disciples that they should take nothing for their journey save a staff only. Mark, however, admits that Jesus ordered the disciples to be shod with sandals. From this it appears that according to Matthew, Jesus forbade the wearing even of shoes and the carrying of staves but according to Mark the disciples had orders to carry staves and to wear shoes.

Superstitions in the Gospels

A study of the New Testament shows that it is not free from the element of superstition.

And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was therein the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

The incidents recorded here are nothing but delusions. The laws of God are against them. On this earth man lives in the company of men and not in that of animals or satans or angels.

It is inconceivable that the laws of God were different at that time. We do not have satans living visibly with men in this world, nor do we find angels doing visible service for men. To witness such things in dreams and visions is a different matter. Such experiences were had by persons in the past, and they can be had even today. But neither did we in the past nor do we at the present time have human beings living with animals such as wolves and lions. Nor do we have Satan coming to a human being and carrying him off with him, so that the man follows him and obeys him against his will, rebelling only occasionally. Nor do we have angels coming and doing such services as baking bread, cooking and fetching water. In fairy tales we do have such accounts, but what place can they have in a religious book? If the New Testament were a book like Kipling’s Jungle Book, it would have been a different matter altogether. But the New Testament is a book for the religious guidance of man. What use can such a book have for fairy tales of this kind? Jesus was a virtuous and pious man. We cannot attribute such a fantastic thing to him. He was an honoured Prophet of God and was sent for the guidance of his people. It is impossible that he should have taught such things. It is impossible that his teaching should have upset the mental balance of his followers and driven them from the path of reason into the morass of superstition. We are constrained, therefore, to say that these superstitious elements were added to the Gospels at some later time. Jesus is not responsible for them, nor are his disciples. The responsibility for the introduction of these superstitions into the text of the Gospels lies on those Christians who came later, who were no longer spiritually sensitive, and who preferred popular applause to strict truth.

And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces; neither could any man tame him. And always night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand); and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.

This passage contains so many superstitious ideas that the reader is left wondering as to how they ever crept into the Gospel account. We are told, firstly, that a man had become so violently insane that he could not be held by the strongest chains. Medical science and ordinary human experience belie such a statement. There certainly can be chains strong enough to hold and restrain the most violent maniac. Did not people in those days know how to make chains strong enough to hold human beings?

Secondly, we are told in this passage that the maniac would cut himself with stones. Such a thing is most amazing. For years apparently, a man goes on cutting himself with stones and yet he does not die.

Thirdly, we are told that Jesus addressed this man, saying, “Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.” Such a thing would only be said by persons entrapped in primitive and ignorant ways. It would not be said by a Prophet. If unclean spirits could ever enter human beings, why do we not see such phenomena today? Have we no means of tracing unclean spirits? True, medical science today identifies mental diseases as neurasthenia, hysteria, insanity and so on, but medical science attributes them to other factors, not to unclean spirits. The Gospel account, however, tells us that a rational, truthful, person like Jesus thought that when a person goes mad it is because an unclean spirit enters him. To attribute such a superstitious thought to a Prophet seems cruel to us. It is to project one’s own superstitions on to a great Teacher. Jesus himself could never have said such a thing. Nor could his disciples. It is certainly a fabrication of later times.

But the superstitious thought is deepened further. We are told that Jesus asked the unclean spirit his name, and the spirit answered, “My name is Legion: for we are many.” That is to say, it was not one spirit but an army of them.

We are told further that the spirits begged Jesus not to send them away out of the country. But Jesus did not agree, upon which the evil spirits begged him to send them into a herd of swine, that they might enter into them. To this Jesus readily agreed. The unclean spirits then went away and entered into the swine and the herd ran violently down a precipice into the sea. And in this way 2,000 of them were drowned.

How superstitious and stupid does this passage seem! We are told that the evil spirits wanted leave to quit the body of man and enter into the swine. A further question is: This herd of swine must have been somebody’s property and what right did Jesus have to destroy another man’s property? If it is said that the son of God had right over all manner of property, then the question is, why call God the God of love? If God as Master of everything can destroy things in the possession of ordinary human beings, then what law or order do we have in the world? And what evidence do we have for the beneficence of God?

Besides this, there is another serious superstition taught in this passage. We are told that when the evil spirits entered into the swine, the swine ran over a steep into the sea. The question is, why this difference of behaviour? When the evil spirits entered a man, he did not hurl himself into the sea. But when they entered into a herd of 2,000 swine, they all ran into the sea and died. The whole passage is superstitious and stupid. Anybody who is convinced of the greatness and rationality of Jesus cannot attribute these things to him or to his disciples. He will have to conclude that such passages have been added to the New Testament account by later writers.

iii) It appears from the New Testament account that Jesus used to restore the dead life. Thus in John (11:43-44) we read:

And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Can any rational being be persuaded to believe these accounts? If the dead could ever be restored to life, why not today? If it is said that this was the special prerogative of Jesus, our reply is that this is not true because Jesus himself said that if his followers had faith as small as a grain of mustard seed, they would be able to show Signs greater than those shown by him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

What abject superstition is this? What possible meaning can such accounts have? Can they be attributed to a man like Jesus? To tell a lie is bad enough. To coin a superstition is about as bad. But to attribute lies and superstitions to God and His Prophets is cruel. The unwary and ignorant writers of the Gospels have been responsible for perpetrating this cruelty. In doing so, they have ruined the Gospels and made them unworthy as religious books.

Doubtful Ethics of the New Testament

And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

From this it appears that (a) Jesus who lived in a country where the fig tree was to be found in abundance did not know when figs were in season; (b) he was, it seems, so devoid of good manners that instead of being sorry for his own mistake, he proceeded to curse a lifeless tree, saying, "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter." We Muslims do not believe Jesus to be God. We regard him only as a Prophet of God. But even we cannot believe that he could have said what is here attributed to him. We cannot but be amazed at those who regard him as the son of God, and as the best exemplar of morals, and who yet tolerate these descriptions which attribute unmannerly conduct to him. They never stop to think whether such things could ever be said by Jesus and whether they were not wrongly attributed to him by others.

Christian apologists today tend to explain away this passage. They suggest that the curse applies not to the fig tree but to the Jewish nation and only means that Jews hereafter will not be able to bring forth any fruit. The explanation is lame. Those who are conversant with ordinary literary forms cannot be impressed by such explanations.

If the fig tree was to be used as metaphor, was it necessary that Jesus should have walked up to one, at a time when he was suffering from hunger? According to the passage in Mark, Jesus saw the fig tree full of leaves, and he decided to go near it, hoping he would find some fruit. It was after he had seen it closely and found nothing but leaves (the time of figs had not yet come) that he cursed the tree. Jesus, in short, goes to the tree to satisfy his hunger. The tree has leaves on it and Jesus hopes to find some fruit. The narrator adds that the time of figs had not yet come. All this shows that this incident was not meant as a metaphor. The narrator makes it quite clear that Jesus went to the tree because he was hungry, and was hoping to find some fruit. But the time of fruit had not yet come. It is possible that this particular tree was late in yielding fruit, or that it suffered from some disease and failed to yield fruit. Jesus, however, became annoyed and cursed the tree. If all this is correctly reported, have we not reason to ask whether those who curse inanimate objects like trees, rivers, mountains or stones, can be regarded as rational beings? Did the writer who attributed this to Jesus think that generations of readers who would come after would swallow this caricature of a sane and decent person like Jesus. Christian devotees may be fooled by such a narrative, but we Muslims cannot attribute these things to Jesus, not because he was in any way different from the other Prophets, but, because we do not expect such things from even ordinary decent and well-behaved persons.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

What is here described as “holy” and as “pearls” is really the revelation and Signs of God. “Dogs” and “swine” in the verse mean the people who had refused to believe in Jesus. There is no doubt that the Signs of God are holier than the holiest things. They are more precious than pearls. But there is no doubt either that things which are holy and precious as pearls are meant just for those who are devoid of them. Signs of God have to be shown to those who are devoid of faith in Him. The Prophets do not bring faith only to those who already have it. This is apparent from history that Prophets have never appeared except in times of great disbelief. They have appeared only when the world is enwrapped in darkness, and their mission is to guide the world from darkness to light. Their Message is addressed to those groping in the dark. It is for them that they come into the world. It does not seem possible that a beloved of God should describe as dogs and swine those whose only fault is that the light of faith has not yet dawned upon them. It is impossible that a Prophet should say that the Signs of God should not be narrated to disbelievers for fear lest they trample them under their feet. If a Prophet were to say such a thing, how will disbelievers ever come to believe? The attribution of such a saying to Jesus is cruel. It amounts to saying that the very people for whom he had come were described by him as dogs and swine and this for no fault of theirs, nor for any mischief which they had committed, but only because the truth had not yet become manifest to them. Contrast with this the example of the Holy Prophet of Islam. In the Quran (26:4) we read:

Maybe thou wilt kill thyself by over-exertion in thy work because they believe not.

The verse describes how anxious the Prophet was to take his Message to all disbelievers. If we contrast the Jesus of the Gospels with the Holy Prophet of Islam, we find a world of difference. One is prepared to work himself to death for the sake of those who will not believe; the other would turn away from them, calling them dogs and swine and ordering his disciples not to recite the Signs of God to them.

There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet of Islam transcends all the other Prophets in his moral example. But we cannot believe that Jesus was as devoid of good morals as the Gospels make him out to be. True, he had not reached the spiritual heights which the Holy Prophet of Islam had. Nevertheless, he was a Prophet of God and had been sent by Him to teach people morals and the ways of the spirit. His example must have distinguished him from millions of other human beings, but woe to the writer who attributes such unmannerly conduct to him.

In this connection we cannot omit to mention the incident relating to the woman of Canaan mentioned in Matthew (15:21-26) and Mark (7:24-27). This woman approached Jesus in great humility. In accordance with the custom of her people she fell at his feet and wanted only guidance from him. But Jesus, according to the Gospel writer, said, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it unto the dogs.”

With what longing and expectation this poor woman must have approached Jesus. And she went not to beg for bread or cloth or for any such material thing; all she wanted was spiritual guidance. She wanted from him just what Jesus had come to give. But the Gospel narratives say that Jesus sent this woman away. Not only this. He abused a woman to her face, called her dog and dishonoured her. Jesus, if the Gospel account is true, did not dishonour this woman from Canaan only. He dishonoured the entire fair sex, and proved by his own utterance that he had nothing to give to poor women. All his thoughts were concentrated on the well-being of the Jewish race. He would prefer having his feet anointed by a sinning Jewish woman (Luke 7:36-38) to saying a word of comfort to a non-Jewish woman. If Christians accept this part of the Gospel narrative as true, they are quite welcome. But we for our part cannot believe that his disciples could have said such a thing about him. These things according to us are fabrications of later writers. And they were made at a time when the real Jesus had disappeared from the world and an imaginary Jesus was being manufactured by ignorant writers.

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him. They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother and who are my brethren?

These passages from John and Matthew show that Jesus did not have much regard even for his mother, a relationship which is held in the highest respect and esteem by all decent persons. Will an ordinary Christian today address his mother saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” Will any Christian today dismiss his mother contemptuously and yet be counted as decent? Then why did the Gospel writers single out Jesus for such a ridiculous description? Respect for mothers is a common virtue even among primitive communities. It is a species of good manners which the worst of human beings display. But if the Gospel narrative is to be believed, this last Teacher of Israel, this hero of the Mosaic tradition, who came to lead a people from darkness into light and to teach them good morals, was rude to his mother and behaved insolently towards her. According to Christian belief, Jesus was the son of God, not a human being. If Jesus was the son of God, why was he born in the lap of Mary? If he had accepted being born in Mary’s lap, and had subjected her to a mother’s travails for nine months, and had sucked at her breast for two years, and had for years burdened her with the duty of his upbringing, could he not have repaid a mother’s debt by showing the courtesy and respect due to her? The truth seems to be that these are only apologies. Christians do not hold Jesus in half the reverence in which they hold the fabricated Gospels. The fabricated Gospels are their own creation and Jesus was a creation of God. They are not prepared to adopt the straight course of admitting that the Gospel accounts are mistaken. They would rather have Jesus defamed than reject the Gospel accounts. But rational and decent human beings who have pondered over the life of Jesus and tried to grasp his purifying example cannot but admit that the Gospels as we find them today are full of fabrications and errors. They contain elements which do not promote, but which tend instead to destroy, the spiritual cravings of man. With the Gospels in such a plight, it was necessary that God should have sent to the world a new revelation free from errors and capable of inculcating in man not only high morals but also a high spiritual outlook. That revelation is the Quran.

Interpolations in the Vedas

The third religion important in respect of numbers is Hinduism. In accordance with the teaching of the Quran we hold the certain belief that the Hindu religion had its origin in divine revelation and, because the Hindus regard the Vedas as their religious books, we are constrained also to believe that the Vedas contain revelations received by Hindu Prophets. But the state in which the Vedas are to be found at the present time is most confusing. We do not even know the names of persons who received these revelations. Vedic mantras in the beginning mention some names, but these names, according to Hindu scholars themselves, are not the names of the recipients of the revelations, but of those who collected them. The historical value of the Vedas, therefore, is very significant.

In truth, the confusion to which this Atharva-Veda has been reduced is without parallel in the other Vedas. Even after Sayanacharya many Suktas have been added to it. A fine method of interpolation has been invented. In the first stage the interpolated passage is marked out from the text by the words Atha (beginning) and Iti (end). When the readers get used to the change the words Atha and Iti are dropped out and the interpolated passage becomes part of the general text. Just as in the Rig-Veda collection the Valkhilya Suktas are being added, so at the end of the Atharva-Veda are being added the Kuntapa Suktas. If you ask, “From where have these Suktas from the fifth Anu-vaka to Kuntapa come?” you have no reply. Ignorance is so rampant that at the end the words, “Atharva-Veda Samhita Samapta” are thought to be a sufficient guarantee that all that has gone before constitutes the Atharva collection. Nobody stops to inquire who the collector and publisher are, and what capacity they have for the task (p.97).

2) Pandit Mahesh Chandra Prashad writes in his Sanskrit Sahitya ka Itihas: Vaja Saneyi Shukla Yajur-Veda Samhita is a strange collection. In this the Vedas and Brahmans are as separate parts. There are altogether 40 chapters, but most people are convinced that of these 18 only are genuine, the rest having been added later. Chapters 1 to 18 correspond to Bhaga Taittiriya Samhita and Krishna Yajur-Veda in prose and verse. Of these 18 chapters we have an explanation, word for word, in their Brahmanas. But in the case of the remaining chapters we have explanations only of a few mantras here and there. Katyayana regards chapters 26 to 35 as interpolations. Chapters 19 to 25 contain an account of sacrifices. They do not tally with the Taittiriya Samhita. Chapters 26 to 29 largely consist of mantras relating to the same sacrificial rites which have been mentioned in the earlier chapters, from which it appears that most certainly they have been added later (p.160).

In the first place there was no certain finding as to whether the Vedas are three or four. According to Manu Smirti and Shatapatha Brahmana, Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda and Sama-Veda are the only Vedas and they make the number three. But according to Vaja Saneyi Upanishad, Brahmana Upanishad and Mundaka Upanishad the Vedas are four in number (p.232).

In Charana Vyuha and other writings of Shaunaka Rishi the account given of the exact number of the Vedic mantras, their words and letters does not apply to the present editions of the Vedas, from which it appears that the Vedas have suffered many additions and subtractions.

When Charana Vyuha of Shaunaka Rishi was composed, the Shakalya Samhita in the Rig-Veda collection had 153,826 words, 432,000 letters and 10,622 mantras. But today you do not find these numbers (p.231).

Besides these, you have in the Vedas, words which quite obviously strike you as foreign to the general text. It seems that the text has been tampered with by the unconscious fault of those who dictated as well as of those who transcribed it (p.74).

The time of the composition of Gopatha Brahmana is just the time when the advocates of sacrifices held the field. At that time the votaries of the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and Atharva-Veda were engaged in a fierce controversy and busy in making interpolations on different excuses. The mantras of the Rig-Veda which they fancied they each entered into their own respective Vedas. Everybody thought himself above criticism and hated everybody else. Not only this. Differences which had crept into the different manuscripts had divided the votaries of the different Vedas among themselves. The votaries of Vashkala Samhita had separated from the votaries of Shakalya Samhita, the votaries of Madhyandina Samhita from Kanva Samhita and Shaunaka Samhita from Pippalada Samhita. Each regarded his own fancied text as the best and the purest and all the others as corrupt and fabricated. The many differences in the texts of the Vedas which we find today took their birth in these evil times (pp.105-106).

Besides these, parts of Brahmana Granthas have also been added to the Vedas, which the discerning reader can detect at once. The Atharva-Veda is in the same plight. Our doctors of theology should ponder over the situation. That a religious book should be in such a sad state is very regrettable (op. cit. p.10).

It has already been pointed out that we have at present two versions of the Atharva-Veda. One is Pippalada Samhita, the other Shaunaka Samhita. Of the two the Pippalada Samhita is the more reliable. But this has not been pointed out, nor has Sayanacharya written a commentary on it. Printed copies of the Shaunaka Samhita are available in three different editions issued by three different presses. Of these, two give the bare text and the third Sayanacharya’s commentary in addition to the text. One of the bare texts has been issued by the Vedic Press, Ajmer, the other by the Bombay Press, the Printer being Sevak Lal. All the three editions differ in both chapter and verse (op. cit. p.109).

10) The Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit Raghunundan Sharma, writes in his book Sahitya Bhushana Vaidic Sampatti:

As far as we know, no evidence has ever been provided as to where exactly interpolations have been made in the Vedas. Nor is it proved that the places where interpolations have been shown to exist were not known to Vedic scholars. Places where interpolations exist have been known for a long time (since the time of the Brahmana Granthas). They are not interpolations, but only annotations which, owing to the oversight of copyists and printers, have entered into the text and become apparently a part of it. Valkhilya Suktas in the Rig-Veda (altogether 11 chapters and 80 mantras), Khil or Brahmana Bhaga in the Yajur-Veda (several chapters), Aranyaka and Mahanamni (2 chapters and 65 mantras) in the Sama-Veda and Kuntapa Sukta (10 chapters and 150 mantras) in the Atharva-Veda—these are interpolations well-known to all, and for which there is ample evidence. Besides these, there are passages in the Yajur-Veda and Atharva-Veda which have been interpolated and which can easily be identified as interpolations. In short, just as variations in the various versions are well-known, and pure versions are nevertheless available, in the same way the interpolations in the Vedas are also well-known...We find that the Vaja Saneyi Samhita (the current version of the Yajur-Veda) has 1900 mantras which number includes the Shakvari mantras, because we are told… that one hundred less than two thousand mantras are those of Vaja Saneyi and the number includes those of Shakvari. If it is Vaja Saneyi Samhita, it should include only Vaja Saneyi mantras. But we find that the current version of Vaja Saneyi contains 1975 mantras. From this it is evident that Shakvari mantras are certainly included in the number 1900. The remaining 75 have been added from somewhere outside (pp.570-571).

These statements show clearly that the Vedas are not free from fabrications. The older as well as the more modern Vedic scholars all seem to agree that the Vedas had had other mantras added to them. To say, as modern scholars tend to say, that the Vedic scholars have traced the interpolations and separated them from the genuine part of the text, is not of much avail. If Vedic scholars had become convinced that some specific mantras were fabrications, why did they not drop them out of the text? The fact that even the fabricated mantras continue to be included in the text shows that Vedic scholars were not quite convinced of their spurious character. The Arya Samaj writer in the end admits that only 1900 mantras of the Yajur-Veda are original, the remaining 75 being later additions. Even about the 1900 mantras he admits that they include some of the Shakvari mantras. These statements, with the significant qualifications, show that nobody really knows the truth and that everybody is trying to speculate. But can speculations be made the foundation of spiritual aspirations?

The truth seems to be that the genuineness of Atharva-Veda has ever been in doubt and the Yajur-Veda and the Rig-Veda also are so similar in their composition that it is most likely that the two have freely borrowed from each other. When confusion is so rife, who can say what mantra is genuine revelation and what is not, what is a fabrication and what is not? A book open to so much doubt cannot serve as a guidance for man. It must be replaced by another book free from all confusion and immune to human interference, upon which man can rely and which he can regard as a revelation with the same certainty with which he can regard “the choir of heaven and the furniture of earth” and indeed his own existence. Only such a book can inspire man with confidence in his search after God. Such a book is the Quran.

Savage Teaching of the Vedas

Consume, with lion aspect, all their hamlets, with tiger aspect, drive away thy foemen. Sole lord and leader and allied with Indra, seize, conqueror, thine enemies’ possessions.

Blind, O my foemen, shall ye be even as headless serpents are: May Indra slay each best of you, when Agni’s flame hath struck you down.

O god Indra, may the Soma juice given by us make you happy and intoxicated. Grant to us wealth and power and our enemies defeat and disgrace.

Ye slay our Arya foes, O Lords of heroes, slay our Dasa foes, Ye drive all enemies away (Part II, ii, ii, 8).
Trample him down beneath thy feet, him who watches for and aims at us. (Part II, iv, i, 16).

Cleave through, O Darbha, amulet, my foes, mine adversaries’ heart. Rise thou and batter down their heads like growth that covereth the earth. Cleave thou my rivals, Darbha, cleave the men who fain would fight with me…Tear thou my rivals, Darbha…Hew thou my rivals, Darbha…Cleave thou my rivals, Darbha…Pierce thou my rivals, Darbha…Pierce the men who hate me, Amulet.

Split thou my rivals, Darbha…Crush thou my rivals, Darbha…Burn thou, my rivals…Consume thou my rivals…Slay thou my rivals, Darbha…Slay all who wish me evil.

Agni, be those uninjured who adore thee, thy priests be glorious and none beside them.

Agni, him who would seek to injure us, the man who looks on us with hate, turn thou to ashes.

Besides the Vedas, other Hindu books also contain the same sort of teaching. In the Manu Smrti, admitted by all Hindu schools as a reliable Hindu Scripture, we have:61

i) Whatever man of the three highest classes, having addicted himself to heretical books, shall treat with contempt those two roots of law, he must be driven as an atheist and a scorner of revelation from the company of the virtuous (II: 11).

ii) A man of the lowest class, who shall insolently place himself on the same seat with one of the highest, shall either be banished with a mark on his hinder parts, or the king shall cause a gash to be made on his buttock (VIII: 281).

iii) A Brahman may seize without hesitation, if he be distressed for a subsistence, the goods of his Sudra-slave; for as that slave can have no property, his master may take his goods (VIII: 417).

iv) But a man of the servile class whether bought or unbought, he may compel to perform servile duty; because such a man was created by the Self-Existent for the purpose of serving Brahmans (VIII: 413).

v) A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from a state of servitude; for, of a state, which is natural to him, by whom can he be divested? (VIII: 414).

vi) Should he (a Sudra), through pride, give instructions to priests concerning their duty, let the king order some hot oil to be dropped into his mouth and ear (VIII: 272).

From these passages from Manu it is obvious that according to the Hindu religion, the grace and beneficence of God are confined to a few chosen castes. For some human beings it is a sin to recite the Vedas or listen to their recitation, and if they break the rule and seek either to recite, listen to or memorize any part of the Vedas, dire punishment amounting even to death is the penalty they have to pay.

This sort of teaching shows conclusively that the Vedic Dharma was meant for a few people. It was not a universal Message. Brahmans, Kshatryas, and Vaishyas do not constitute the whole of humanity. For other sections of mankind what does Hindu teaching offer? Is there no guidance for them? Can the universal providence of God be reconciled to the idea of guiding one part of His creation and omitting the other, leading one part to Heaven and the other part to Hell? Such teaching is not only savage. It is repugnant and dishonourable to God. Our God is full of grace and universal beneficence. Every part of the world is under His providence. Those who live on the surface of the earth, or those who live under it or those who live in the air, all grow and fulfil their destinies under the universal sustenance of God. He has endowed all sections of mankind with the same powers, the same urges and the same emotions. The urges which raise men in the spiritual scale have been distributed equally over the whole of humanity. No people have been dealt with scantily, neither Europeans, nor Americans, nor Japanese, nor any other Asiatics. Hindus are not superior to others in respect of spiritual aspirations or mental capacities. God could not have omitted large sections of His own creation from His guidance, and chosen a sixth of the human race for it. The existence of such a teaching declares openly that the time of this teaching is over. We need now a book which should address itself to the whole of humanity, which should collect Arab and non-Arab, Jew and Gentile, Brahman and non-Brahman in one fold, and inculcate a universal feeling, and teach us not to treat the humble and the downtrodden as unworthy, but as even more deserving of our sympathy, compassion and care. It was this need of a new book which the Quran came to fulfil.

Superstitions in the Vedas

The Vedas are full of superstitions. Elements like fire are called gods. True, it is said that these are not gods but only names of the attributes of God. But it is true also that the Vedas teach, as pious duties, practices like lighting fire and burning oil, ghee and other such articles in it (Rig-Veda II. 10:4), and no doubt is left that oil, ghee, etc., are food for Agni, the fire-god. If Agni is an attribute of God, what is the point in lighting fire and feeding it with expensive inflammables? The ceremonial must be a superstition even if Agni is only an attribute. If, on the other hand, Agni is regarded as God, and the ceremonial suggests that it is, then the whole thing, the ceremonial as well as the belief behind it, is nothing but rank superstition.

Drink thou, O Hero Indra, drink the Soma; let the joy-giving juices make thee joyful.

Now Indra is the name either of God or of His angels. If Indra is the name of God, it is a most primitive thought which prompts one to offer Soma juice to God. If, on the other hand, Indra is the name of an angel or a spirit, even then the offering of Soma juice is a mean superstition. For God is hidden, and His angels are spiritual beings. They need no drinks.

Let those enjoy in whom thou art delighted. Indra, drink Soma for thy strength and gladness.

To think that Soma juice will bring power to God or His angels is ridiculous in the extreme.

It is not one or two verses which teach superstitions of this kind. Hundreds of such verses can be quoted. We have, in some of them, descriptions of gods crossing the skies, mounted on clouds or on chariots.

A large part of the Vedas consists of immoral suggestions. These pertain to matters of sex and are so brazen that we fear quotation would offend the reader’s sense of decency. Sex impulses and sex organs are described with a detail which would be nauseating even in a book of medicine.

For these reasons, we can say that though there are parts of the Vedas which point to their origin in divine revelation, there are others which prove that they have suffered from human fabrication. Because of this, the Vedas can no longer be treated as a guide for human conduct. We need, instead, a book free from all such defects. That book is the Quran.

Contradictions in the Vedas

Like the Bible, the Vedas contain interpolations made by different persons in different periods. No wonder there are many contradictions in their text, and here are some examples:

i) The Vedas raise the question, who made the sun? To this quite different answers are proposed in different parts of the Vedas. In the Rig-Veda (IX, 96:5) we are told that the sun was made by the Soma god.

But in the Rig-Veda (VIII, 36:4) we are told the sun was made by the god Indra. The same book teaches one thing in one chapter and quite another in another chapter. It teaches in one chapter that the sun was made by the Soma god, and in another, that it was made by the god Indra. When we turn to the other Vedas the contradiction becomes more and more serious.

In the Yajur-Veda (31:12) we read that the sun was made by Brahma from his eye.

The Atharva-Veda further contradicts this. In it (XIX, 27:7) we find that all the gods joined together and made the sun.

ii) The Vedas teach that the sun at first was on the earth, it was then taken to the skies. This account may be ridiculous from the point of view of astronomical science; we are concerned only to point out that even this extraordinary statement is couched in very different terms in different parts of the Vedas.

In Krishna Yajur-Veda Taittiriya Samhita (7:1) we read that the sun was on the earth and gods then carried it on their backs to the heavens and placed it there.

In the Rig-Veda (X, 156:4) we read that the fire-god carried the sun and placed it in the sky.

But in the Rig-Veda itself in another place (VIII, 12:30) we read that god Indra alone carried the sun to heaven.

And in yet another place, (X, 62:3) it is stated that the sun was carried unaided by the sons of Angira Rishi to heaven.

In the Atharva-Veda (XIII, 2:12) it is given that the sun was carried unaided by the Atri Rishi to heaven that it should create the months.

In Shukla Yajur-Veda (4:31) we have that it was the god Varuna who set the sun on the sky. The belief that the sun was carried from the earth to the heavens is ridiculous enough. But contradictory versions of it are even more ridiculous. The Rig-Veda alone gives three contradictory accounts. One is that the sun was taken by the fire-god from the earth to the heaven. A second is that it was the god Indra who did so. A third is that the sons of Angira Rishi performed this feat. The Yajur-Veda also gives contradictory versions. According to one, all this duty was performed unaided by the god Varuna. The Atharva-Veda gives quite a different account, declaring that it was the Rishi Atri who carried out the task.

iii) Of the creation of heaven and earth, we have many accounts in the Vedas. But these accounts contradict one another as much as the accounts of ghosts and fairies do in children’s tales.

In the Sama-Veda, Purva Archik (VI, 1:4), we have that the heaven and the earth were made by the Soma god.

But in the Rig-Veda (VIII, 26:4) we find that the heaven and the earth were made by the god Indra living on the Soma juice.

In the Yajur-Veda (13:4) it is written that the heaven and the earth were made by Brahma.

Number of Vedic Gods

We believe, as we have said before, that the Vedas were originally a revelation of God and as such they taught nothing but the Unity and Oneness of God. But the Vedas, as we know them today, are not the Vedas which were revealed to the Rishis. The Vedas today are full of polytheistic descriptions and these descriptions are to be found in such abundance that what little in the Vedas still bears on the Unity of God is relegated to the background. We give below a few examples:

In the Yajur-Veda (7:19) we are told that there are in all thirty-three gods, eleven on the earth, eleven in the sky, eleven in the waters.

In the Rig-Veda (III, 9:9) we are told that the total number of gods is 3,340. This, because, according to the Rig-Veda, 3,339 gods went to the fire-god and fed him with ghee. On his joining the big company the total number of gods became 3,340.

Accordingly in the Rig-Veda (x, 52:6) the total number of gods is 3,340. This divergence in the number of gods present in different parts of the Vedas is amazing in the extreme; according to the Yajur-Veda 33 and according to the Rig-Veda, 3,340! To have departed from the conception of One God was dangerous enough. But such wide divergence in the number of gods proposed in different parts of the Vedas seems worse than dangerous. Contradictions of this kind compel us to conclude that though the original Vedas were most certainly revealed, the present Vedas no longer retain their original character, and are incapable of giving satisfaction to those who are in quest of spiritual solace. They need to be replaced by another book which should be free from all immoral, contradictory, savage and superstitious teaching. That book, we claim, is the Quran.

God’s Promise to Abraham

A fourth question, the answer to which should throw light on the question relating to the need of the Quran, is: Did earlier religions regard themselves as final? Or did they believe in a kind of spiritual progression which was due to culminate in a universal teaching for the guidance of mankind?

In answer to this, we must admit that a continuous narrative, in which the story of one Prophet is linked with that of another, is to be found only in the Bible. In reconstructing the stories of the Prophets, the help we derive from the Bible is invaluable. No other book revealed before the Quran can give us this help. To answer the question whether earlier teachings and earlier Prophets did or did not foretell the coming of a perfect Teaching and a perfect Prophet after them, we have to turn to the Bible.

When we do so, we find that God made many promises to the Patriarch Abraham. He was born in Ur of the Chaldees. From there he migrated with his father to Canaan. His father stopped on the way at Haran and died there. On his father’s death Abraham was commanded by God to leave Haran and go to Canaan and had the following revelation:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.62

For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

And the angel of the Lord said unto her (i.e. to Hagar) I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Further on (Genesis 17:16), we are told that Abraham’s wife Sarah also was promised a son.

And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee (refers to Abraham’s prayer in Genesis 17:18––”O that Ishmael might live before thee): Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

“And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.”

For God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand for I will make him a great nation,

And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.

From these quotations it is obvious that Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, Ishmael being the elder and Isaac the younger. God promised Abraham that He would multiply and bless his progeny. The promise applies to both Isaac and Ishmael. From the quotations it also appears that Ishmael lived in the wilderness of Paran, that the land of Canaan was given over to the sons of Abraham, and that the external sign of the covenant which God made with Abraham was circumcision of all males. All these promises were fulfilled. The progeny of Isaac multiplied exceedingly. From among them arose the Prophets, Moses, David, Ezekiel, Daniel and Jesus. For 2,000 years they ruled over Canaan. Their hold on it was never really abolished, though for a short time it became weak. After the 7th century A.D., however, the sons of Isaac, and those who observed the letter of the Law of Moses had to withdraw from Canaan. The sons of Ishmael, instead, became its political as well as its spiritual leaders. The fact that the sons of Israel had to surrender the land of Canaan shows that they had become unworthy of the promise which God had made to them through Abraham. This promise was that Israel would remain in possession of this land until the Last Day, and the promise was true. The Last Day in the divine promise, therefore, cannot mean the day which is to mark the end of the world, but the day on which the Law of Moses was to be superseded by the promulgation of a new Law for the guidance of the world. In the language of divine revelation the advent of a new Law is often described as the birth of a new heaven and a new earth. Just as a new heaven and a new earth cannot be created without a large-scale upheaval—usually associated with the Last Day—so the establishment of a new Law must entail a large-scale upheaval of the people who receive that Law. Therefore, when the prophecy said that the sons of Israel would retain their hold over Canaan until the Last Day, it meant that their hold would continue until the advent of a new Law-giving Prophet. In the utterances of David we have a hint of this meaning of the prophecy. The promise contained in Genesis that Israel would retain possession of Canaan until the Last Day is expressed differently. Thus in Psalms (37:29) we read:

The promise of eternal possession is not for Israel as such but for the righteous. This utterance of David, in fact, was a clear warning that the days of Israel’s dominance were numbered. The Prophet seemed to point out that the divine promise, after a time, was to be understood not in a racial but in a spiritual sense; that the sons of Ishmael were going to inherit the promises made to Abraham by inheriting the truth and a new covenant was going to be initiated through them. If our interpretation of the prophecy is not correct, then the question is, why did God make the sons of Ishmael—and believers in the Message of the Quran—dominant in Palestine? The prophecy was quite clear. The sons of Isaac were to hold Palestine until the Last Day. The question is, why did they not? Why did God allow a transfer of political power from the sons of Isaac to the sons of Ishmael? If the transfer had lasted for a short time, it would have made no difference to the prophecy. The rise and fall in the fortunes of nations are a common phenomenon. But the transfer of which we speak proved a permanent one. More than 1,300 years have passed, and Palestine is still in the possession of Muslims, the sons of Ishmael. European powers and the U.S.A. are trying hard to alter this, but so far, at any rate, they have not succeeded. If at all they succeed in their designs, the success is bound to be short-lived. Either the new Israelite settlers will become converted to Islam and regain possession of Palestine through a new covenant; or they will have to quit Palestine once again. Palestine is for those who keep the covenant which Abraham made with God. Christians, no doubt, claim to fulfil the covenant. But they forget that the covenant lays down an important external sign. That sign is circumcision of the male population. Only Ishmaelites have kept the sign both before and since the revelation of the Quran.

In short, the prophecy of Abraham promised blessings to both Isaac and Ishmael. According to this promise, the sons of Isaac were established over Canaan and the sons of Ishmael over Arabia. But when the Last Day arrived for the sons of Isaac, then, in terms of the prophecy of David, the promise was transferred from Israel to Ishmael. The claim of Israel was now only a racial claim. The claim of Ishmael was spiritual. On the basis of their racial claim the sons of Ishmael held Mecca and the territory around.63 On the basis of their spiritual claim they added Canaan to their possessions after the religious deterioration of Israel.

The Prophecy in Deuteronomy

When Moses went to Mount Horeb under the command of God, he addressed the Israelites saying:

The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.64

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.65

From these passages it is evident that Moses prophesied about a Law-giving Prophet who was to appear after him, and who was to be from among the brethren of Israel.

That he was to be a Law-giver, and not an ordinary Prophet, is obvious from the words “like unto Moses”. As Moses was a Law-giver, the Prophet, who was to be like Moses, was also to be a Law-giver. The Promised Prophet is described as one who “shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” From this also it appears that the Promised Prophet was to be a Law-giving Prophet. The promulgation of a new Law means the initiation of a new movement, a new nation. A Prophet who promulgates a new Law, therefore, is no ordinary Teacher or Reformer. He has to present a comprehensive teaching, incorporating fundamental principles as well as detailed rules. Without it a new nation cannot be raised. But a Prophet who does not bring a new Law has only to explain and to annotate an already existing Law. It is not necessary for him to present all that he receives from God to his people. It is possible that some of his revelations may be meant only for his personal edification, which he is under no obligation to pass on to his people. The prophecy also lays down that the Promised Prophet will “speak in my name;” and those who will not listen to him, God will “require it” of them: that is, those who turn a deaf ear will incur punishment. We are also told that anyone who pretends to fulfil the prophecy will be put to death.

If we keep in view all the terms of the prophecy, we are bound to conclude that until at least the time of Jesus no Prophet had appeared in the world who could be said to have answered to the description of the Promised Prophet. All the Prophets who appeared between Moses and Jesus, therefore, may be ignored, when we set out in search of the Prophet who could be said to have fulfilled this prophecy. They have left no following and no people who could espouse their claims; Only Jesus remains who has a large following, and who is regarded by his followers as the last Teacher sent by God into this world. But when we apply, one by one, the terms of the prophecy to Jesus, we find that not one of them, applies to him:

First, the Promised Prophet was to be a Law-giving Prophet. Was Jesus a Law-giver? Did he bring a new Law into the world to replace an old one? Jesus said clearly:

And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law…67

Jesus laid no claim to giving a new Law, and his disciples regard the Law as a curse. How then can Jesus and his followers be said to fulfil the prophecy in Deuteronomy?

Secondly, the Promised Prophet was to be raised not from among Israel but from among their brethren and Jesus was an Israelite.

Christian exponents, confronted with this fact, are wont to say that Jesus had no earthly father, so he can be said to be one of the brethren of Israel. But such a construction would be untenable. The prophecy speaks of brethren, which means they were to constitute a race or a people from among whom the Promised Prophet was to rise. Jesus stands alone, as son of God. If there were other sons of God, he might have answered to the description of the prophecy. But, apart from this, it is clearly laid down in the Bible that Christ was to be of the seed of David.68 Jesus may shed his Israelite origin because he had no earthly father: but he will not then remain a son of David, so that the prophecy of the Psalms relating to Christ will not apply to him.

Thirdly, the prophecy says “I will put my words in his mouth.” But the Gospels do not consist of words which God put in Jesus’ mouth. They only tell us the story of Jesus and what he said in some of his public addresses and what his disciples said or did on different occasions.

Fourthly the Promised One was to be a Prophet, while the Christian view is that Jesus was not a Prophet, but the son of God. How, then, can Jesus answer to the description of the prophecy?

Fifthly, we have in the prophecy: “Words which he shall speak in my name.” Strange as it may seem, there is in the Gospels not a single example of words which Jesus may be said to have received from God with the command to pass them on to the people whom he taught.

Sixthly, we have in the prophecy “He shall speak unto them all that I shall command,” The Promised Prophet; according to this, was to give to the world a complete and comprehensive teaching. But Jesus claimed no such mission for himself. He regarded himself as the forerunner of a greater Teacher yet to come. Thus we have (John, 16:12-13):

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

From these verses it appears that the prophecy in Deuteronomy was not fulfilled in Jesus. We cannot but conclude, therefore, that both the Old and the New Testaments foretold the coming of a Prophet after Jesus who was to guide the world “unto all truth”, and who was to establish the name of God on earth for all time. Our claim is that the revelation of the Quran and the advent of the Holy Prophet mark the fulfilment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy. The following facts bear this out:

i) The Holy Prophet Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael. The descendants of Ishmael were the brethren of the descendants of Isaac, the Israelites.

ii) The Holy Prophet is the only one claiming to be a Prophet like Moses. We have in the Quran (73:16):

Verily We have sent to you a Messenger, who is a witness over you even as We sent a Messenger to Pharaoh.

iii) The prophecy described the Promised One as a prophet. The Holy Prophet claimed to be a Prophet only. Jesus, we are told, on the other hand, did not Claim to be a Prophet. We read in Mark (8:27:30)

He asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

That is to say, Jesus denies being either John the Baptist, or Elias or one of the Prophets. But the prophecy in Deuteronomy speaks of the Promised One as a Prophet like Moses. The prophecy, therefore, applies to the Prophet of Islam, and not to Jesus.

iv) The prophecy speaks of “words I will put in his mouth.” The Gospels do not contain any such words. On the contrary, the Holy Prophet of Islam brought to the world the Quran which is from beginning to end only the word of God, which God put into his mouth. The Quran describes itself as the word of God.69

v) The prophecy said that the Promised One would speak all that he was commanded. We have quoted the Gospels to prove that Jesus did not pass on everything he received from God, and that there was to be another after him, who was to do so. The Holy Prophet of Islam fully answers to this description. We have in the Quran (5:68): “O Messenger! convey to the people what has been revealed to thee from thy Lord”. The verse seems to say, “O Prophet, there is an ancient prophecy about you which said that when you come into the world you would give to it all the truths you received from your God. Therefore preach to the world whatever is revealed to you, whether it likes it or not.” Similarly, the verse revealed on the completion of the revelation of the Quran says:

This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.70

That is to say, “Through the revelation of the Quran, faith has been made perfect and the gift of guidance made complete for you, and peace and tranquillity have been appointed for you as your religion.” It was the Holy Prophet of Islam, therefore, who taught everything and kept back nothing. In the time of Jesus, people were not ready to receive and to believe in everything that was worthwhile. But in the time of the Holy Prophet of Islam man had traversed all the stages of spiritual evolution and the time had come for all the truths to be revealed to the world.

vi) The prophecy speaks of “words which he shall speak in my name”. This part of the prophecy also was fulfilled in the Holy Prophet of Islam. He is the only one who spoke in the name of God, because every Chapter of the revealed Book brought by him begins with the words: “In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.” This great sign, duly incorporated in the Quran, also proves that the last stride in the spiritual advance of humanity, foretold by Moses, was registered with the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam.

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.71

In this verse the world was taught how to distinguish the Promised One of the prophecy from those who should only pretend to fulfil the prophecy. It was necessary that a clear criterion should be laid down. The Promised One had to be charged with the important mission of initiating the last stage in the spiritual advance of man. If pretenders to this office should arise, the world would run great risks. To ward off these risks, God laid down the criterion that a pretender would incur divine punishment and meet with death and defeat. The Holy Prophet of Islam laid claim to this office very early in his career, and in the clearest terms. When he announced his claim, he was friendless and weak. The enemy was large in numbers and was strong, and he left no stone unturned to bring to naught his message and his mission and spared no pains to put an end to his life. Mighty rulers also set themselves against him but it was they, not the Prophet who suffered discomfiture and disgrace. The Holy Prophet died full of success. When he died, the whole of Arabia had declared faith in him; and after his death his first Successors in a few years spread Islam throughout the whole of the then known world.

Moses was a true Prophet. The prophecy in Deuteronomy was a revelation from God. But was the Holy Prophet bound to succeed in the way he did? And were his enemies, who thirsted for his blood, bound to fail in the way they did? No, neither the Holy Prophet’s success nor the failure of his enemies was an accident. On the other hand, it seems that the Quran had in view the terms of the prophecy in Deuteronomy when it declared before all Arabia and early in the career of the Holy Prophet:

And Allah will protect thee from men.72
Similarly, addressing the enemies of the Prophet, the Quran declared
He is the Knower of the unseen; and He reveals not His secrets to any one, except him whom He chooses, namely a Messenger of His. And then He causes an escort of guarding angels to go before him and behind him.73

That is to say, the Prophet, having been charged with an important mission, would not be left unprotected. Enemies would never be able to kill him.

These verses proved that the success which the Holy Prophet attained was not an accident of good fortune. He declared early, through revelations received by him from God and recorded to this day in the Quran, that God would protect him from the murderous attacks of his enemies. He warned the world that because he was not a pretender but the Prophet promised in the prophecy in Deuteronomy, he would not be killed.

In short, 1900 years before the advent of the Prophet of Islam, Moses declared that his own Law was, in the divine scheme, not the last Law; that the world was to have a fuller Law later on; and that, for this, God would send in the Latter Days another Messenger of His. This Messenger was to teach all truths; it was he who was to mark the last stage in the spiritual advance of man. The world had to wait for another book and another Prophet. If, therefore, the Quran and the Holy Prophet have come after the Bible and after the Prophets Moses and Jesus, and if they claim to have come from God as guidance to man, their claim must be treated as just and true. It must be taken as the fulfilment of ancient prophecies. The revelation of the Quran was not a gratuitous revelation, a redundance in the presence of those revelations. Indeed, if the Quran had not been revealed, promises made by God through His Messengers would have gone unfulfilled, and the world would have become afflicted with doubt and disbelief.

Faran—Part of Arabia

And he said, the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

In this verse Moses is promised three manifestations of the glory of God. The first of these appeared from Sinai, to which a reference is made in Exodus (19:20):

And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

This manifestation of divine glory appeared in the time of Moses. The world witnessed the blessings which came with it. Time passed. The second manifestation promised in the prophecy was to take place from Seir. Seir is that part of the world round about which the miracles of Jesus took place. “Rising up from Seir”, therefore, points to the advent of Jesus. Christian exponents of the Gospels identify Seir with Sinai but this is a mistake. Seir is part of Palestine. The name has many corrupt forms. One of these serves as the name of a people who are descendants of the Prophet Jacob and are known as Banu Asher. Another serves as a name for the north western part of Palestine. Seir, therefore, stands for the second manifestation of divine glory, to wit, the one especially associated with Palestine. To identify Seir with Sinai and to attribute both manifestations to Moses, is wrong also because Moses never crossed into Canaan. He died at a spot from where he could only see its borders. After Moses and before Jesus no manifestation of divine glory took place which could rank with that of Sinai. “Rising up from Seir”, therefore, means the advent of Jesus which took place right in Canaan, and through which, as it were, God showed His face for a second time. The third manifestation of divine glory was to take its rise from Paran, and Paran (Arabic Faran) is the name of the hills which lie between Mecca and Medina. Arab geographers always called this territory Faran. A halting place on the way from Mecca to Medina is called the Valley of Fatimah. When caravans pass through it, children from the neighbourhood meet them and sell them flowers. Asked where the flowers come from, the children answer “Bariyyat Faran,”74 that is, the wilderness of Faran. Faran, therefore, is part of Arabia, the Hijaz to be exact. According to the Old Testament, Ishmael lived in this part. Thus in Genesis (21:20-21) we have:

And God was with the lad (Ishmael); and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.

The Quraysh are Ishmael’s Descendants

The Biblical description of Paran is somewhat different from that of Arab geographers. According to the Bible, Paran is a territory adjacent to Canaan. But a territory made up of woods and hills must be a large one, sometimes extending over hundreds and thousands of miles. It cannot be just a strip of land situated within another territory or on its edge. The Biblical description can only mean that the woods and hills of Paran rise from somewhere near Canaan. It cannot mean that Paran is the southern periphery of Canaan. The Bible, however, admits that Abraham had a son called Ishmael and that he lived in Paran. The testimony of the sons of Ishmael who inhabited it, must be regarded as paramount. The Israelites should have little to say on the point. Their knowledge of history and geography was not good. They could not give an adequate account of the route they followed in their own journey from Egypt to Canaan. How could they pronounce on the geographical facts of other territories? Only one people today trace their descent from Ishmael and they are the Quraysh. They live in Arabia, and Mecca is their centre. If the Quraysh claim is a pretence, it is difficult to find a motive for it. The claim could not advance their racial status, for the Israelites still looked down upon them. Nothing could make a desert people trace their descent to Ishmael unless the descent was a fact.

Also, if the Arab claim is false, where did the descendants of Ishmael disappear? According to the Bible, Ishmael had twelve sons, and these twelve again, according to the Bible, were to multiply exceedingly.

Thus in Genesis (21:13) we have:
And also of the son of the bondwoman (i.e. Ishmael) will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

Again in Genesis (21:18) we have:
Arise, lift up the lad and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

Again in Genesis (17:20) God says to Abraham:
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

That is to say, the descendants of Ishmael, were to multiply exceedingly and were to become a great nation. If the claim of the Arabs to be the descendants of Ishmael is false, equally must these Biblical prophecies be false. For there is not another nation in the world which claims descent from Ishmael. It is only when the claim of the Arabs is accepted, that the Biblical prophecies relating to Ishmael can be proved true; for they all apply to the Arabs.

The strongest historical evidence consists of stable national traditions. For hundreds of years a people have regarded themselves as descendants of Ishmael and no other people in the world so regard themselves. Better evidence than this there cannot be.

According to the Bible, the Ishmaelites lived in Paran, and Paran, according to Arab geographers, is the territory extending from Mecca to the northern border of Arabia. Paran, therefore is part of Arabia as certainly as the Quraysh, are the descendants of Ishmael. The divine glory which was to rise from Paran was, therefore, to rise from Arabia.

That the Ishmaelites had settled in Arabia is proved by further evidence from the Bible. In Genesis (25:13-16) we have the names of the twelve sons of Ishmael as follows:

1. Nebajoth. 2. Kedar. 3. Adbeel. 4. Mibsam. 5. Mishma. 6. Dumah. 7. Massa. 8. Hadar. 9. Tema. 10. Jetur. 11. Naphish. 12. Kedemah.

In accordance with ancient custom, we should expect their descendants to be named after their respective ancestors. The descendants of Jacob, for instance, would be named after their ancestor. Countries also have been named after their people. In the light of these customs a survey of the population of Arabia reveals that the names of the twelve sons of Ishmael are found spread in different parts of Arabia. The descendants of Ishmael fill the entire length and breadth of the country.

The first son of Ishmael was Nebajoth. The territory peopled by his descendants, according to geographers is between 30 and 38 degrees north, and 36 to 38 degrees east. The Rev. Katripikari (Khutubat Ahmadiyya) admits this and says the descendants of Nebajoth occupied the territory between Palestine and Yanbu‘, the port for Medina.

Kedar was the second son. His descendants also constitute part of the Arab population. The literal meaning of Kedar is “of camels,” which points to their Arabian habitation. They are to be found in the territory between the Hijaz and Medina. Ptolemy and Pliny, in the course of their description of the people of the Hijaz, speak of the tribes Kedars and Gedors (the latter seems to be a corrupt form of Kedar). There are Arabs today who claim descent from Kedar.

The third son was Adbeel. According to Josephus, the Adbeels also lived in this part of Arabia. The fourth was Mibsam. We cannot find any traces of this tribe in ordinary geography books. But it is possible that their name has become corrupted into some unrecognizable form. The fifth son was Mishma, and the Mishmas are to be found to this day in Arabia. The sixth was Dumah. A well-known spot in Arabia is still called Dumah, and Arab geographers have always traced this name to that of the sixth son of Ishmael. The seventh son was Massa, whose name is to be found intact in a Yemenite tribe. Their archaeological remains can also be identified. Katripikari mentions this. The eighth son was Hadar after whom we have the famous town Hudaydah in Yemen.

The ninth son was Tema. From Najd to the Hijaz the territory is called Tema and it is all peopled by the descendants of Tema. In fact they seem to have spread right up to the Persian Gulf.

The tenth son was Jetur (Arabic Yatur). The Jeturs can also be traced in Arabia and are known as Jedurs. The sounds “j” and “y” often interchange, as do “t” and “d”.

The eleventh son was Naphish, and Forster thinks that the authority of Josephus and the Old Testament supports the view that the descendants of Naphish lived in the wilds of Arabia.

The twelfth son was Kedemah. The habitation of the descendants of Kedemah is known to lie, according to the famous geographer, Mas‘udi, in Yemen. The tribe known as Ashabur-Rass and mentioned also in the Quran are descendants of Ishmael, and they were two tribes, one called Kedamah and the other Yamin. According to some authorities the second one was called Ra‘wil, not Yamin.

Historical and geographical evidence, therefore, shows that the descendants of Abraham have lived in Arabia. All of them held Mecca and the Ka‘bah in great reverence, and from this it appears that Ishmael first settled in Mecca, and this is the part which, according to both Arab and Old Testament records, is called Paran (or Arabic Faran). The testimony of the revelation of Isaiah (21:13-17) supports the same view:

The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail: And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the Lord God of Israel hath spoken it.

This prophetic passage is a picture of the Battle of Badr which took place about a year after the Holy Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina. In this battle the sons of Kedar, the people of Mecca and the territories around, suffered a grievous defeat at the hands of Muslims. Unable to withstand the fierceness of Muslim swordsmen and archers, the Meccans sustained a disgraceful defeat. Mark the words with which the passage begins: “The burden upon Arabia.” Herein Tema and Kedar are respectively spoken of as an Arabian territory and an Arabian tribe. According to this text, revealed 714 years before Jesus to the Prophet Isaiah, the descendants of Ishmael lived in the Hijaz.

In short, from whatever side we may approach this question, there is abundant evidence that the Quraysh were the descendants of Ishmael and that Paran of the Bible (Arabic Faran) is the land in which they lived. The manifestation of divine glory that was due to take place from Paran was the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, prophesied by Moses.

The Holy Prophet Mentioned in Habakkuk

God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hands and there was the hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet. He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting. I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction; and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.

Here we have a mention of Tema and of a Holy One from Paran. From the prophecies of Moses and Habakkuk it is evident that the advent of Jesus was not to mark the last stage in the spiritual development of man. It was to be followed by the advent of another Prophet to mark the third manifestation of divine glory. This Prophet was to manifest both the Beauty and the Majesty of God and bring a fiery Law into the world not merely a Message of forgiveness.

The Holy One to appear from the land of Tema and Mount Paran is the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and his fiery Law is the Quran which has the virtue of consuming to ashes the stuff of which sins and satanic machinations are made. Moses truly said that the Promised One, rising from Paran, would be accompanied by 10,000 saints. As all the world knows, it was the Holy Prophet of Islam who rose from Paran and marched into Mecca with 10,000 followers. Could Jesus be said to have fulfilled this great prophecy or David or Moses? Did any of them rise from Paran? Did any of them march to victory with 10,000 saintly followers? Jesus had only twelve disciples, one of whom sold him for a little money. Another cursed him for fear of being maltreated. Ten remained faithful but, according to the Gospel account, even they dispersed when Jesus was put on the Cross. Had they stood by their Master’s side, even then a following of ten could not have equalled a following of ten thousand. And then the Biblical prophecy says clearly that the ten thousand would be with the Promised Prophet. But the Gospels tell us that the ten disciples of Jesus who remained abandoned him when he was put on the Cross.

According to Habakkuk, one sign of the Promised One was to be the amount of praise showered upon him. Thus Habakkuk (3:3) says, “And the earth was full of his praise.”

It does not seem to us a mere accident that the Holy Prophet of Islam was named Muhammad (literally, the Praised One). When his enemies denounced him, they were worried by the contradiction entailed in denouncing the Praised One. So they changed his name from Muhammad to Mudhammam, from the Praised One to the denounced one. When the Prophet’s Companions got exasperated at the denunciations and abuse hurled at him he would say, “Hold your peace; they abuse not me but someone else called Mudhammam.” Only a man with a name as beautiful as his personality and character could answer to the description which Habakkuk had given of the Promised One. No less significant is the tradition of devotional verse which has grown in Islam, and which has resulted in an important branch of the poetry written by Muslims of all countries.

This sign of the Promised One was also fulfilled in the Prophet of Islam. True, the prophecy speaks of pestilence, that is, a disease in epidemic form. But it is large scale destruction and death which a pestilence brings which is here meant. Because the enemies of the Holy Prophet suffered large scale destruction and death in their encounters with him, he may be said to have fulfilled even this part of the prophecy.

This part of the prophecy, like the others, can apply neither to Moses nor to Jesus. Moses died while he was still fighting his enemies, while Jesus was put on the Cross. The Prophet who beheld and drove asunder the nations was the Prophet of Islam. Truly did he say of himself, “My presence is awe-inspiring, and I have been helped not a little by it. People fear me from a distance of one month’s journey.”77

This part of the prophecy also applies to the Holy Prophet of Islam. For his enemies were completely routed. Mountains and hills only mean powerful enemies.

“I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.”

This part of the prophecy clearly shows that the Promised Prophet was to belong to somewhere outside Syria. For it is the hordes in Cushan and Midian which are to be afflicted and frightened on the appearance of the armies of the Promised One. The description cannot apply to Moses or Jesus. It applies only to the Prophet of Islam. When a small army of his, in the time of his First Successor, Abu Bakr, advanced towards Palestine, notwithstanding the fact that Canaan was then under the Roman Kaiser, master of half the known world at the time, the superior forces of the Kaiser were crushed by the inferior Muslim forces. “The tents of Cushan were in affliction and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.” The people of these lands found their salvation in laying down their arms before the servants of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

The Prophet’s Advent Foretold by Solomon

My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh. His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon socks of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

This prophecy promises a Prophet who would be superior to others, and would possess a rank higher than others. We say this because the rapturous description in the Song of Solomon comes in reply to the question:

We are told that this beloved would stand out like a flag among ten thousand men. As a flag symbolizes an army, the description, therefore, applies to some great occasion on which this beloved would command a following of ten thousand.

Now myrrh is a kind of gum, of bitter taste but sweet-smelling and very useful, a germ-killer and a cicatrizer, used in disinfectant preparations, in treating wounds and making scents and perfumes.

We are also told that “he is altogether lovely” (mark the Hebrew Mahamaddim). It means his person and character would be such as to compel love and admiration.

This prophecy clearly applies to the Holy Prophet of Islam. It was he who headed 10,000 saints and marched victorious from the heights of Paran into the valley of Mecca, exactly as had been foretold by Moses. It was he whose teaching proved like myrrh for the world, bitter in taste but beautiful in its effects. It contained principles and rules all of which were calculated to promote the well-being of man, and which yet tasted bitter to some nations. And it is he who is called (and is true to the description) Muhammad.

Christian writers are wont to say that the beloved promised in this prophecy has been called Mahamaddim not Muhammad. But this objection does not go very far. The Old Testament name for God is Elohim. In Hebrew it is common to show consideration and reverence by using a plural for a single person. We do the same in Urdu. Lecturing in Urdu, a lecturer might easily conclude his tribute to the Prophet by saying Yeh hain hamare Muhammad, meaning, these are our Muhammad.

b) In the Song of Solomon, we have another prophecy about the Holy Prophet of Islam. This is in 4:9-12. In these verses Solomon addresses his beloved as both sister and spouse (4:9; 4:10; 4:12). The simultaneous use of the two forms of address— sister and spouse—is not without significance. “Sister” indicates that the Promised Prophet would be an Ishmaelite, one of the brethren of the Israelites; and “spouse” indicates that the Message of the Promised Prophet will not be confined to his own people, as were the Messages of all the Israelite Prophets. It would be open to other nations and peoples as well. We should not be misled by the feminine form of address used here. The passage is couched in poetical language, full of metaphors. The last line of the chapter uses the masculine form, which is contradictory, but significant. Thus we have:

The prophecy (4:9-12), therefore, applies only to the Holy Prophet of Islam. Jesus was not one of the brethren of Israel, nor was his teaching addressed to any people other than Israel.

I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black.

From this description it appears that Solomon foretold the advent of a Prophet who would come from the south, and he (or his people) would be black of skin as compared with the descendants of Isaac. It is well-known that the people of Syria and Palestine have a fairer complexion than the people of Arabia. The Prophet of Islam was an Arab.

My mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.82

This is a description of the people to which the Promised One was to belong. The Arabs, at the advent of the Prophet of Islam, were an unambitious people. They accepted employment under Romans and Iranians, but of their own country they thought but little. The Holy Prophet came and Arabia rose from her slumber. The result was an Arab-led world movement embracing every conceivable side of human progress – spiritual, intellectual, political. The Arabs became the keepers not only of their own vineyard, but of the vineyards of the whole world.

e) The Song of Solomon also contains a warning for Israel: they are told not to meddle with the Promised Prophet. Thus in 2:7 we have:

I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.

The theme is continued in the Song in 3:5 and in 8:4. These passages only mean that when the Promised Prophet appeared, Jews and Christians, two branches of Israel, would oppose and oppress him; but as the Prophet would be a God-appointed Prophet, they would not succeed, but would instead suffer an ignominious defeat. Solomon, accordingly, warned his people saying:

The Israelites, both Jews and Christians, were advised to do nothing to the Promised Prophet. When his influence spread to their land, they should accept him. It would not do to oppose him and to try to stem the tide of his influence. Opposition would spell the opponents’ own destruction. For a people who meddle with a Prophet’s mission become liable to divine punishment. The warning proved true. Jews and Christians became meddlesome and brought divine punishment upon themselves. If a people remain passive and show no hostility to a Prophet, he adopts no violent steps against them but confines himself to teaching and preaching. Occasionally, a Prophet draws the sword, but only against those who first draw the sword against him. He makes war only upon those who first make war upon him and seek to put down by force and oppression the Message sent by God. The Holy Prophet’s example illustrates this point. It was the risk entailed by thoughtless hostility to a true Message against which Solomon warned.

These prophecies cannot possibly apply to Jesus. Jesus did not appear from the south of Palestine. Nor was he one of the brethren of Israel. Nor did he have the means to resist and to destroy the opposition of Israel. The prophecies apply only to the Prophet of Islam. He is the beloved of the Song of Solomon. The Song is, in fact, a rapturous description of the Prophet.

Isaiah’s Prophecies

The book of Isaiah also is full of prophecies about the Holy Prophet of Islam. They all point to the advent of another great Prophet, the harbinger of peace and contentment for the whole world. In accordance with the divine way, however, the prophecies contain a symbolic element which has to be interpreted before the meaning of the prophecies can be unravelled. The use in them of such names as Jerusalem, Zion, etc., is only symbolic. But Christian writers have been misled by these symbols into thinking that the prophecies relate to Jesus. Names qua names do not constitute any part of the prophecies. If the general content of the prophecies does not apply to Jesus, the names Jerusalem or Israel or Zion will not justify the application. True, the names also have a meaning, but a meaning which fits into the main content of the prophecies. As such the names Jerusalem and Israel will only mean “My holy places” or “My select people”, not Jerusalem or Israel per se.

a) The first prophecy we wish to quote from Isaiah is contained in 4:1-3. It is as follows:

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem.

Once it is agreed that Zion and Jerusalem in this prophecy are but symbols, the entire content of the prophecy is seen to apply to the Holy Prophet of Islam and to no one else. The prophecy says that the Promised Prophet will bring with him wealth and splendour, that he will have treasures of the earth laid at his feet that his people will be called holy and that polygamous marriages will be the rule at the time. Do these signs apply to Jesus and his disciples? Did they bring with them a period of wealth and splendour? Were the treasures of the earth laid at their feet? Was polygamy in demand by their society? No. The signs apply only to the Holy Prophet of Islam, his followers and his time. Jesus is supposed to have disapproved of polygamous marriages. But the Holy Prophet of Islam sanctioned and even commanded these under certain conditions. It was in his time that wars had to be fought in defence of religion and the youth of the nation had to lay down their lives. The number of widows increased and young women had difficulty in finding husbands. The Holy Prophet, accordingly, ordered polygamous marriages to prevent immorality and to make up for lost manpower.

And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly: None shall be weary nor stumble among them; nor shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken: whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind: Their roaring shall be like a lion, they shall roar like young lions: yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry it away safe, and none shall deliver it. And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof.

A time was to come, according to this prophecy, when somewhere outside Palestine, a man would raise a flag. This man would call the nations of the world, who would swiftly answer his call and gather around him. Those who responded to him would shun sloth and indolence and make great sacrifices for their cause. They would take part in wars and their horses’ hoofs would emit fire like flint. Their attacks on their enemy would resemble a whirlwind. They would completely overpower their enemy whom no one would be able to save. And why should they do all this? Because they would see that the world was full of darkness and a big change called for.

This prophecy applies in its entirety to the Holy Prophet of Islam. There is a reference to it in the Quran also. In accordance with it, the Holy Prophet appeared away from Palestine in Mecca, and raised his flag in Medina; it was he who announced to the world:

It was his voice to which men and women from the ends of the earth responded with great alacrity. In Jesus life not one convert came from outside Israel. All his disciples came from within a radius of 40 to 50 miles. But believers in the Prophet of Islam came from Yemen and Najd and Iran, and among them were idol-worshippers and Jews and Christians. They made such great sacrifices at the Prophet’s call and exerted themselves for it so ungrudgingly that the worst enemies of Islam feel constrained to pay a tribute to their spirit of devotion and sacrifice. God Himself pays a tribute to them in the Quran thus:

Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him.84
There are some of them, who have fulfilled their vow, and some who still wait.85

The Prophet’s followers had to take part in wars and to make use of bows and arrows. Their horses’ hoofs were like flint and their wheels like the whirlwind. To this also there is a clear reference in the Quran:

By the panting chargers of the warriors, striking sparks of fire, making raids at dawn, and raising clouds of dust therewith, and penetrating thereby into the centre of the enemy forces.86

This is a description of the warriors of early Islam, and how truly does it correspond to the prophecy of Isaiah.

And if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof.87

That is, both human wisdom and divine teaching have become dark and both point to the need of a new Teacher, bearer of a new Message from God;

Allah has indeed sent down to you an admonition—a Messenger who recites unto you the clear Signs of Allah, that he may bring those who believe and do good deeds out of darkness into light.

Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.

The prophecy clearly foretells the appearance of a Holy One whose coming will prove a trial for both Houses of Israel, a snare and a gin for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who will be defeated and disgraced if they choose to oppose him. His advent will mark the supersession of the Mosaic Law and God will turn away His face from the House of Jacob.

Christian writers are silent on this point. Maybe they take the two Houses of Israel to mean the two factions, one of which supported and the other opposed the son of Solomon and set up a rival rule. But this will not do, because the prophecy speaks of a holy man and of events which will take place in his time. This holy man can either be Jesus or someone coming after Jesus, because there has been no outstanding religious personality between Isaiah and Jesus who may have confronted Israel with a crucial Message. But did Jesus confront Israel with any such Message? And did Israel suffer defeat and disgrace on opposing this Message? And did Jesus seal the Law for his disciples and announce its supersession by another Law? As for this, Jesus’ declaration is quite clear. He said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.88

Jesus settled the point not for his own time only but also for the future. He said significantly:

Can the children of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.89

From these declarations it is obvious that, according to Jesus, even after his death, the Mosaic Law was to remain binding upon his disciples. Were this not so, he could have said that the days of fasting were over. Instead of this he not only fasted himself, but he also prophesied that his disciples would begin to fast after him. Sealing the Law, therefore, does not mean abolition of the Law as such or repudiation of the very idea of determinate religious duties. It means that in the time of the Promised Holy Man, the Mosaic Law would become superseded and a new Law would become established in its place. If this interpretation of ours is not true, why were we told that God would turn away His face from the House of Jacob? Did not Jesus belong to the House of Jacob? If he did not so belong, he could not be a descendant of David. And if he was not a descendant of David, he could not be the Christ of the prophecy. For Christ was to be a descendant of David.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

The prophecy promises the advent of a king who will have five names or titles:
(1) Wonderful. (2) Counsellor. (3) The mighty God. (4) The everlasting Father. (5) The Prince of Peace. The prosperity and peace in his empire will know no bounds; he will sit on the throne of David for ever and perpetuate its good name by judgement and justice.

Annotators of the Gospels say in their headnotes to this chapter that this prophecy relates to the birth of Jesus. But of the signs mentioned in this prophecy, not one applies to Jesus. Did he for instance, ever become king? Were the names enumerated in the prophecy—Wonderful, Counsellor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, ever applied to him? Wonderful, he might have been called, because of his peculiar birth. But the description does not seem to have been proposed. His deniers regarded his birth as illegitimate, so they could not describe him as Wonderful. His supporters, on the other hand, were in doubt about his ancestry. According to some he was a son of David. We have:

If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.90

Jesus gave no exhibition of his “might”, nor was he ever described as “mighty” by anybody. Both friend and foe denied this of him. Were this not the case, his disciples would not have deserted him and fled. Says Matthew (26:56):

The fourth name is everlasting Father; and this also does not apply to Jesus. For, as we have shown already, he foretold another who would come after him.

The fifth name is Prince of Peace and even this cannot apply to Jesus. He never became king, so he never could bring peace to the world. Instead, he remained oppressed by the Jews and was ultimately put on the Cross by them.

The prophecy lays down as a sign, “Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end”. Jesus never attained to any government and, therefore, never could witness its increase.

Another sign is, “Upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever,” and even this does not apply to Jesus.

These signs apply to the Holy Prophet of Islam. It was he who had to shoulder the responsibilities of State and who, quite against his will, found himself a king. It is an irony of fate that Jesus, who never became king, constantly dreamed of being one.91 The Holy Prophet was king; yet he hated being one, and constantly warned his followers against imitating the ways of Kaiser and Chosroes.

One name of the Promised One is Wonderful. Jesus admits that the bearer of this name was to come after him. We have this admission in the parable of the vineyard.92 The parable is: A householder planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen. He then sent his servants to collect the fruit, but the husbandmen beat or killed or stoned the servants one by one. He sent more servants, but they also were maltreated like the others. He then sent his son, but the husbandmen killed the son. Having said so much, Jesus asked:

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?93

He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.94

Did ye never read in the scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.95

That is to say, after the son had been slain, there would be another one sent by God, the one who would prove “the head of the corner,” and who would seem “marvellous” in the eyes of Jesus and of all others. The Marvellous One, therefore, would come after the son is slain. It can only be the Holy Prophet of Islam who appeared after Jesus who was put on the Cross.

The third name of the Promised One is Counsellor. The name applies pre-eminently to the Holy Prophet. A nation turned to him for advice. He, in turn, held regular consultation with his people, and made it obligatory on the State to consult the people in all important matters. That the Prophet was a much-consulted person is evident from the Quran. We have:

O ye who believe, when you consult the Messenger, give alms before your consultation. That is better for you and purer. But if you find not anything to give, then know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.96

The rule about giving in charity before consulting, makes it clear that consulting the Prophet had become a regular institution, and a voluntary fee had been introduced to raise money for the poor. The rule was meant for those who could afford it. The Prophet had come to have so many calls on his time that it seemed possible and desirable to make a suitable charge on individual applicants. The charge was justified because the Prophet’s time had to be devoted to the benefit of mankind at large; if individuals applied for the use of his time, it was meet they should pay something into the public treasury. Consulting the Prophet, therefore, had become a regular institution. The Prophet more than anybody else deserves to be called the Counsellor. The Prophet also instituted the system of consultation as an essential condition of good government.

General measures and administrative rules are not to be initiated until the people’s representatives have been consulted. Following this injunction, the Holy Prophet laid down consultation as an important duty of the Khalifah, or elected head of Muslims. He is reported to have said, “There is no Khilafat without consultation.”98 A State administered without consulting the people would be un-Islamic. Compared with this, what did Jesus do as counsellor? He never consulted on any considerable scale. Nor did he encourage counselling as an institution. The Holy Prophet, therefore, was the counsellor of the prophecy and not Jesus.

The third name in the prophecy is mighty God. The Old Testament points to a resemblance between God and Moses. Thus in Exodus (7:1) we have:

And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh.
And again in Exodus (4:16)
And thou shalt be to him (Aaron) instead of God.

In the Bible Jesus is called son of God and Moses a “like of God”. Whenever, therefore, a human being is spoken of as a “like of God,” it would mean Moses or someone like Moses. Moses, we have shown above, foretold of a prophet like himself,99 and he is no other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, he being the one who really answers to the description of the prophecy. It is the Prophet of Islam, therefore, who can most legitimately be called God or, better, a Manifestation of God. We have references relevant to this in the Quran. At the Battle of Badr, the Prophet took a handful of gravel and threw it at the enemy. This proved a signal for a dust storm which discomfited the enemy and contributed to his defeat. Of this, God says to the Prophet,

Similarly at the time of entering Islam, new believers used to take the oath of allegiance to the Prophet. Referring to this God says in the Quran:

Verily those who swear allegiance to thee indeed swear allegiance to Allah.101

The Prophet does service for God. The term “God” of the prophecy, therefore, applies to the Prophet rather than to anybody else. So does the expression “mighty.” For it was he who was able to subjugate all his enemies in his lifetime and to smash all opposition.

The fourth name in the prophecy is everlasting Father. This also applies to the Prophet and to no one else. It was he who claimed unambiguously a lasting character for his teaching. For he foretold the second coming of Christ, but the second coming of Christ was to be in the person of one of the Prophet’s own followers, not one whose coming could violate his spiritual dominion. Referring to this God says in the Quran:

And We have not sent thee save as a bringer together of all mankind—a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; but most men know not. And they say, “When will this promise be fulfilled, if you speak the truth?” Say, “For you is an appointed day from which you cannot remain behind a single moment nor can you get ahead of it.102

The expression “all mankind” here points to the universal and everlasting character of the Message of Islam. It is to be addressed to all nations in all ages. Disbelievers taunt the Prophet about the day promised here and ask when it will be; that is, when will the universal and everlasting character of Islam be demonstrated to the world? God says in reply that the day will come as appointed.

He would plan the divine ordinance from the heaven unto the earth, then shall it go up to Him in a day the duration of which is a thousand years according to what you reckon.

The thing planned is Islam. In course of time its influence will begin to decline. In a thousand years it will have ascended back to heaven. The special divine support which it enjoyed in the beginning will disappear and its fortunes will be at the mercy of the natural forces of the world. From the Quran as well as the Hadith it appears that the expansion of Islam was to go on for the first three hundred years, after which was to set in the period of its decline. The decline was to go on for one thousand years. Reading together the two passages—34:29-31 and 32:6—it becomes quite clear that for a long time people would remain unconvinced of the universal and everlasting character of the Message of Islam; but after 1300 years facts and conditions would emerge which would leave the world in no doubt about it. The passages read together point to the second coming of the Messiah—promised in both the Quran and the Hadith—and remind us that the second coming will take place in the person of a follower of the Prophet of Islam. As the advent of the Promised Messiah would have been prophesied by other Prophets also, his rise from among the followers of the Holy Prophet would prove conclusively that the spiritual dominion of the Prophet of Islam was everlasting, that there were to be no heavenly Teachers now except from among his followers. The Law and Teaching of the Holy Prophet would remain un-superseded by any other Law or Teaching. Besides, in the Promised Messiah’s time there was great stress to be laid on the duty of preaching, resulting ultimately in the spread of Islam all over the world. When this happens, the universal and everlasting character of Islam will be established beyond doubt. The everlasting Father of the prophecy of Isaiah, therefore, is the Prophet of Islam and none other.

The fifth name in the prophecy is Prince of Peace. Prince also means king; a prince is potential king. We may, therefore, take the expression to mean King of Peace, and as such it can apply only to the Prophet of Islam. The religion which he founded is called Islam, which literally means, “peace”.

We do not know in what sense Jesus can be regarded as Prince of Peace. At least one meaning of this expression would be that the person so called has an abundance of the quality called peace. Prince of Peace would, therefore, be a person who has peace in his natural gifts and is able to give peace to others. There is no evidence of this in the case of Jesus. He never had the power to administer forgiveness to his enemies. True, he preached forgiveness and taught his followers to turn the other cheek. But between profession and performance there is a world of difference, and what is really valuable is performance, not profession. Of this performance, we have evidence only in the Holy Prophet. How cruelly he was treated by his people. There are no excesses which were not committed against him and his followers. Many among his closest relations and friends were murdered mercilessly. The Prophet’s own person was a witness to these barbarities. He was their target on many different occasions and in many different ways. He had to leave his hometown and seek shelter elsewhere, as had his friends and followers. Almost all of them had to suffer the pangs of separation from their near and dear ones. Some were torn asunder while tied to two camels running in opposite directions. Women were killed by spears thrust in their private parts. Slaves who believed in him were stripped and dragged on burning sand and gravel. They were persecuted and asked to renounce their faith. The bodies of Muslims killed in battle were mutilated. In short, early Muslims—men and women, old and young, dead and living—had to suffer to the utmost and in a variety of ways. But at last God made them triumphant. The Holy Prophet, with ten thousand followers, re-entered Mecca as a victor. The cruel enemy was at his feet, thinking no punishment too much for what he had done. Yet all that the Prophet said to them was, “This day, I forgive you all.”103 The Prophet had the power to avenge the wrongs done to him and his followers. But he chose to forgive, and to desist even from any injury to their sentiments. When Muslims were advancing towards Mecca, a Muslim general was heard to say that on that day they would repay the Meccans in their own coin.104 The Prophet deposed the general, saying that such remarks were calculated to hurt the Meccans. Do we meet with any such thing in the life of Jesus? Or in the lives of his disciples? Or, in the whole of Christian history? There is no doubt that Christians also suffered much persecution and hardship, and were a weak people. But the time came when they were installed in power. How did they then treat their enemies? Is not history dyed red with the blood of their enemies? How then can Jesus be called Prince of Peace? He himself could not afford peace to others. His followers were able to afford it, but did not give it. Instead, they gave death and destruction. The Prophet of Islam had the power to punish his enemies for wrongs many times more savage than those perpetrated by Jews against Jesus. Still he chose to forgive. The Prophet was, therefore, the Prince of Peace of Isaiah’s prophecy.

The sign clearly applies to the Prophet of Islam and not to Jesus. Jesus did not attain to any political power. The Prophet did, and his followers became rulers of the whole of the then known world; and so well did they rule that it is impossible to find a parallel.

Upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever.105

Did Jesus ever ascend the throne of David? It may be he did so 300 years later, when the Roman Emperor became Christian. But the prophecy lays down that the throne is to be retained for ever. The hold of Jesus lasted for about 300 years when it ended with the rise of Islam, and now for 1300 years, Palestine—the throne of David—has been in the possession of Muslims. What is nearer to the expression "for ever" in the prophecy—300 years or 1300? No doubt, today a Christian power holds Palestine. But it is significant from our standpoint that the British are there not as rulers but as holders of a mandate. A temporary lapse in the Muslim possession cannot contradict the prophecy.

The rule which the Prophet of Islam established in the world through his followers was full of judgement and justice, to use the words of the prophecy. We have historical evidence to prove this. In the time of ‘Umar, the Second Khalifah of Islam, a Muslim army had to withdraw temporarily from Christian territory under the pressure of superior Roman forces. Before they did, they collected the inhabitants and told them that they could no longer protect their lives and property; so they were returning to them the money they had realised from them as tax. The Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem were so impressed by this singular act of good judgement and justice that they came out with the Muslim army, wailing and praying for the Muslims speedy return.106 Little wonder Isaiah says of the Promised One:

Upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgement and with justice.107

And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day; and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it. And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it; and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land; whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

This prophecy speaks of a time when God would manifest Himself to the people of Egypt who would, therefore, come to know Him and would make sacrifices and offerings to Him; Egypt and Syria would unite, the inhabitants of each would visit the other; and both would join in a common form of worship.

This prophecy also was fulfilled in the Holy Prophet of Islam. The people of Egypt did become Christian, but only for a short time of their history. Now for 1300 years Egyptians have been Muslims. In the words of Isaiah, God says to the Egyptians: “Blessed be Egypt my people,” Let the Egyptians speak for themselves. Do they owe allegiance to Jesus or to the Prophet of Islam?

Similarly let the Assyrians speak for themselves. Do they attribute themselves to Jesus or the Prophet of Islam?

No doubt, under European and American influence Jews are entering Palestine. But the Jews are not the followers of Jesus. And in any case Muslims still form a majority in this land of Israel, and Christians still a minority. If Jews take possession of the land it will only mean a temporary lapse in the Muslim possession, and whether it is Jews or Muslims who possess the land, Jesus can have no claim on the prophecy. The prophecy speaks of “a highway out of Egypt into Assyria,” i.e. a sign of active contact between the two countries. The prophecy pictures the inhabitants of the two countries visiting and befriending each other and joining in a common mode of worship. Who brought all this about; was it Jesus? Christians were in possession of both Egypt and Assyria and a majority of the inhabitants of these countries, at one time, were Christian. But during this time, did the conditions arise of which the prophecy speaks? According to the prophecy the two countries were to develop such intimate contact that for all practical purposes they were to become one people, with one language and one faith. Some contact between two neighbouring countries is normal and natural. But the contact between Egypt and Assyria was to be different; it was to result in welding two peoples into one, and to give them a common nationality. Such a fusion between the two never occurred in the time of Christian rule. Under Rome, Egypt and Syria were parts of the same empire, but the mode of administration in the two countries remained different. Egypt was a semi-independent kingdom, and Assyria was under a Roman Governor. The Egyptian Church also was different from the Assyrian Church. In Egypt, under the influence of the Alexandrian Church, Christianity had assumed a form different from that of the Palestinian or Syrian Church. The Egyptians worshipped in their own language, Coptic, and Syrians in a corrupt mixture of Hebrew and Greek. Under Islam conditions became quite different. For centuries Egypt and Syria remained under one rule. Both began to speak and still speak one language. Both adopted and still keep up a common mode of worship. Both developed a common consciousness. Syrian scholars went to Egypt and were honoured as Egyptian savants. Egyptian scholars went to Syria and were honoured as Syrian savants. Even today, while the Muslim world under European diplomacy lies dismembered, the Arab League is a united body of Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians. The three seem to share and to be proud of a common nationality. This prophecy of Isaiah, therefore, was fulfilled in and through the Holy Prophet of Islam and his followers. To apply this to Jesus and the Christian Church seems utter extravagance.

And thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Quite evidently, the prophecy foretells of a new movement, with a new name, and the new name will not be one assumed by the movement, but one proposed for it by God in His revealed word. Annotators of the Bible apply this prophecy to the Christian Church, notwithstanding the common knowledge that the names Christian and Christianity, or the many names by which Christian sects are known, were never proposed by God in His revealed word but were assumed by the people. There is one people alone in all the world who have a name given to them by God, and they are Muslims. Thus the Quran says:

This is a clear reference to the prophecies of Isaiah. The verse of the Quran seems to say, “We foretold that your name will not be one of your choice but one of Our choice. Accordingly, today, We give you the name—Muslim.” The name is derived from salam which means Peace, and this is in keeping with one of the titles of the Promised Prophet—“Prince of Peace.” The prophecy was marvellous. Equally marvellous is the fact that only Muslims claim to have received their name from God in His own revealed word. Isaiah foretold that a Prophet would come the name of whose followers would be chosen by God and announced in His revealed word. The Holy Prophet of Islam is that Prophet; his followers have been named Muslims by God, and his religion Islam.

Prophecies of Daniel

According to the book of Daniel, chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, had a dream, which he forgot soon after. Then he called upon the wise men of his time to tell him both the dream and its meaning. None of them, however, was able to do so. Daniel prayed to God, and had the dream and its meaning revealed to him.

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.109

Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.110

In Daniel’s interpretation, the gold head is the king of Babylon; the silver breast and arms the kingdoms of Persia and Midis, which arose after the kingdom of Babylon; the brass thighs stand for the Greek Empire under Alexander, which became dominant after Persia and Midia; and the iron legs stand for the Roman Empire which attained to power on the decline of the Alexandrian Empire. About this last, the dream says:

The description points to the fact that the Roman Empire would cover parts of Europe as well as Asia. Iron legs denote the European part of the Roman Empire and point to the strength of a single nationality and a single faith. But the feet, says the dream, were partly of iron, partly of clay. This meant that the European power was to subjugate parts of Asia and thus become an imperial power. Imperial powers command large territories and vast resources, but they also suffer from the inherent weakness which comes from lack of cohesion among their peoples. The dream evidently means that in latter years the Roman Empire would begin to decline because of this lack of cohesion. The dream, however, proceeds to say more important things:

Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.112

Here we have a prediction of the rise of Islam. Early Islam clashed first with Rome and then with Iran. When they clashed with Rome, Rome had conquered the Alexandrian Empire of Greece and had become more powerful than ever; and when they clashed with Iran, Iran had extended its power over Babylon. When their clashes resulted in the destruction of both Rome and Iran, then did the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, break to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors. The order of events in the dream and their interpretation by Daniel leave no doubt as to their meaning.

Everybody knows that Babylon was succeeded by Persia and Midia and the power of Persia and Midia was broken by Alexander and the Empire of Alexander was replaced by that of Rome which from its Eastern seat of authority at Constantinople laid the foundation of a mighty Europo-Asiatic Empire. This Asiatic Roman Empire was defeated and destroyed by the Holy Prophet and his Companions. Once receiving a report that the Roman armies intended to attack the Muslims, he led an expedition in person to the Syrian border. But no regular fighting then took place. Irregular skirmishes and raids, however, continued till regular fighting was resumed in the time of Abu Bakr which resulted in the total discomfiture and annihilation of the Roman Empire in the time of ‘Umar, the Second Khalifah, when the Persian Empire also suffered defeat at the hands of Muslim armies. Thus both these once mighty empires shrank into diminutive and distant States.

We have references to the “stone” of Daniel’s prophecy in Isaiah and Matthew.

And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

And many among them shall stumble, and fall and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

And from Matthew, chapter 21, it appears that the Promised One—the stone of the prophecy—is not Jesus, but another coming after Jesus, and in 21:44 we have a fine description of the stone:

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Jesus saith unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

As we have shown above, Jesus himself denies all claim to this prophecy, which applies to one coming after the son is slain. Christians today fondly apply the prophecy to their Church. But this attempt will not avail. According to Daniel, the thighs of the image were made of brass, the legs (i.e. the Roman Empire) of iron and the feet of iron and clay; the stone smote the image upon his feet. Early Islam, that is to say, was to clash with the borders of the Asiatic part of the Roman Empire and smash it to pieces. The Roman Empire was the temporal expression of the Christian Church. The stone of the prophecy, therefore, was to clash with the Church. The stone could not be the Church, for the Church could not clash with the Church. Nor could it be Jesus. For Jesus came long before the Eastern Roman Empire. Whoever destroyed the might of the Roman Empire, fulfilled this prophecy. The prophecy, therefore, applies to the Holy Prophet of Islam and his followers, and to no one else.

The stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.113

This is exactly what happened. The Holy Prophet and his band of devotees defeated the Kaiser and the Chosroes, and Muslims became rulers over the whole of the then known world. The stone did become a great mountain; for a thousand years the direction of world affairs remained in the hands of Muslims.

Prophecies in the New Testament

We turn now to prophecies about the Prophet of Islam which are recorded in the New Testament. In Matthew (21:33-46) we read:

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first; and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes! Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

We have referred to this prophecy before. In this beautiful parable Jesus has presented an epitome of the history of Prophets. The passage leaves no doubt that vineyard means the world; husbandmen mean mankind at large; fruits which the householder wishes to collect mean virtue, piety and devotion to God; servants mean Prophets who have been coming into the world one after the other; son means Jesus who appeared after a long line of Prophets. The son was dishonoured and slain by the husbandmen. Having said this, Jesus goes on to speak of “the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner.” The stone which had been rejected is the progeny of Ishmael, whom the sons of Isaac used to treat with contempt. According to the prophecy, one from among the sons of Ishmael was to appear and become the head of the corner, “the Seal of the Prophets”, to use the well-known expression of the Quran—no ordinary Prophet, but one who would bring a final and complete Law from God. The advent of an Ishmaelite for the grand office would seem strange too. Yet (as Jesus says) God would take away His kingdom from the Israelites and give it to the Ishmaelites, who would prove a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, that is, a people who would keep alive the worship of God in the world. Everybody should be able to see that the only outstanding Prophet who came after Jesus and who could be said to answer to this description is the Holy Prophet of Islam. He it was who came into conflict with Judaism and Christianity and completely shattered the influence of both. He it was whose race was hated. Of him alone could it be truly said, “Whosoever fell on him was broken and on whomsoever he fell was ground to powder.”

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The verses mean that Jesus is going to depart from his people and his people will not be able to see him again, until they declare:

There is a prophecy here of two advents. One after the departure of Jesus; this was to be like the advent of God. The other was the second advent of Jesus himself. It is made clear that until the one who “cometh in the name of the Lord” has come, the second coming of Jesus will not take place. We have proved above that one who comes in the name of the Lord is the one resembling Moses.

The prophecy of Jesus and the certain fact of the advent of Islam and its Holy Prophet leave no doubt that in the divine scheme the advent of Jesus was not to mark the last great stage in spiritual advance. The last stage was to be marked by the advent of one coming “in the name of the Lord.” It cannot be said that after him Jesus is to come again, so the last stage in spiritual advance will still be marked by Jesus. The point is made clear by Jesus himself. Did he not say:

Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.114

Only they will see, receive and acknowledge Jesus on his second coming who will first have accepted and acknowledged “the like of Moses.” A denier of “the like of Moses” will not be able to recognize Jesus when he comes a second time. And why not? Because Jesus when he comes again will be found among the followers of “the like of Moses.” Only they will be able to believe in the second coming of Jesus who will first have believed in “the like of Moses.” Jesus, therefore, when he comes a second time, will be no independent Teacher. He will be a strict follower and an image of “the like of Moses.” The last stage of spiritual advance, therefore, will be marked by this “like of Moses,” and by no one else.

c) We read in John (1:20-21) that people went to John the Baptist, and asked him if he were the Christ of the prophecy, and he said, No. Then they

Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?117

It is evident from this that three prophecies were current in the time of Jesus:
(i) the second coming of Elias; (ii) the birth of Christ; (iii) the coming of that Prophet, that is, the Promised One of the prophecy in Deuteronomy. The three were believed to be separate persons.

Now Jesus has declared that John himself is Elias. Thus in Matthew (11:14) we have:

From Luke (1:17) it also appears that before the birth of John, his father Zacharias had the revelation:

That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.

From all these passages, it is clear that according to the Gospels, the second coming of Elias had taken place in John. As for Christ, it is agreed that he is no other than Jesus of the New Testament. Only “that Prophet” remains. He is neither John, nor Jesus, because he is different from both, a third. It is also known that “that Prophet” had not appeared until the time of Jesus. So it is clear that “that Prophet” of the Bible had to appear, according to the testimony of the Gospels, some time after Jesus. After Jesus, no one has claimed to be “that Prophet” and indeed no one seems to fulfil the signs attributed to “that Prophet” except the Holy Prophet of Islam.

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

From this verse also it appears that after Jesus there was to be another. And who is he except the Holy Prophet? No one excepting him has ever made the claim.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This prophecy also is true only of the Prophet of Islam. True, it says “whom the Father will send in my name.” But “in my name” can only mean, “He will bear testimony to my truth.” The Holy Prophet testified to the truth of Jesus as a divine and honoured Teacher and Prophet and declared them mistaken and misguided who thought him accursed. The prophecy says clearly, “He shall teach you all things.” The words are reminiscent of those used in the prophecy in Deuteronomy. The description applies only to the Holy Prophet; and it was his teaching which brought comfort to the world.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgement, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The prophecy lays down that the Comforter will come after the departure of Jesus. When the Comforter comes, he will reprove the world of sin and truth and justice. Of sin, because he will accuse the Jews of disbelief in Jesus. Of truth, because he will correct the erroneous belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and because he will assure the world that Jesus of Nazareth—the Teacher who appeared to Israel—will not again come into the world in person. Of justice, because he will put an end to all satanic forces. The prophecy also says that when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide them into all truth that the book revealed to him will contain no human word, that he will foretell things to come, and that he will glorify Jesus and clear him of all charges.

This prophecy unmistakably applies to the Holy Prophet. It says quite clearly that unless Jesus departs, the Comforter cannot come. From The Acts (3:21-22) it also appears that the Prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:18 is to appear sometime between the departure of Jesus and his second coming. The Comforter, therefore, is no other than the Promised One of Deuteronomy 18:18. The prophecy says that the Promised One will reprove the deniers of Jesus. The Promised One could not be a Christian. It is but usual for followers to reprove the deniers of their Prophet. The prophecy must relate to one who would belong to another people, with no racial or religious connection with Jesus but being truthful and God-sent, he should respect the cause of all true Prophets and promote respect and reverence for them all. The Prophet of Islam was an Ishmaelite, not a Christian or Jew. But how he defends the honour of Jesus! Referring to the Jews the Quran (4:158-161) says:

And their saying, We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it: they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty; on the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise; and there is none among the People of the Book but will believe in it before his death; and on the day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them. So, because of the transgression of the Jews, We forbade them pure things, which had been allowed to them, and also because of their hindering many men from Allah’s way.

The excesses of the Jews were their disbelief, their cruel charge against Mary, and their utterly false claim that they had put to death Jesus, a Messenger of God. The truth about this claim was that they had failed to kill Jesus either by the sword or by crucifixion. They had only strong suspicion that Jesus had died on the Cross. But it was only a suspicion, not a certain belief. They themselves continued to differ among themselves and had no agreed view as to what had really happened to Jesus. Possessing no certain knowledge, they merely speculated. But this is certain that they failed in their design to put Jesus to death. Allah, on the other hand, saved him from an accursed death on the Cross and admitted him to the circle of His favoured ones, and Allah is both Powerful and Wise. Every follower of the Book will continue to affirm his belief in the death of Jesus on the Cross, but on the Judgement Day Jesus himself will depose against them all and accuse them of affirming a falsehood. Because of these excesses of the Jews, God withdrew from them those heavenly blessings which formerly seemed their birthright. The passage speaks for itself.

A second sign in the prophecy of John (16:7-14) is that the Promised One will correct the erroneous belief in the resurrection of Jesus and prove that Jesus, the Israelite, will not come to the world again. This duty was duly performed by the Holy Prophet of Islam; he exposed the error that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven where he was still alive. Says the Quran (5:117-119):

And when Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?' He will answer, 'Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind; and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things. I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me—'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the watcher over them; and Thou art witness over all things. If Thou punish them, they are Thy servants; and if Thou forgive them, Thou surely art the Mighty, the Wise.”

The interrogation and the reply are to take place on the Judgement Day. The passage declares that Jesus is dead, and not alive in heaven; only his followers raised him to godhead after he had died and departed from this world. Ascending to heaven only means that, having done his duty, he had gone to his Maker, honoured and successful.

The prophecy (John 16:7-14) also said that Satan and satanic forces will be smashed at the hands of the Promised One. Of all the Prophets, the Prophet of Islam stands pre-eminent in the designing of measures against all satanic forces and influences and for the promotion of purity and piety in human life. We cannot go into a detailed exposition of such points here. The reader will find it elsewhere in this work. We may only say that at least one visible proof of this claim of ours on behalf of the Prophet is the prayer for protection against the influence of Satan which the Prophet taught his followers, and on the frequent use of which he insisted, viz., I seek refuge with Allah from Satan, the rejected. The prayer is in habitual use by Muslims. We know of nothing like it in the teachings of other Prophets. Muslims, more than any other people, are alive to their daily duty of defeating the designs of Satan. They, more than any other people, have been taught this duty. They, more than any other people, are deserving of the promise contained in the prophecy. Their Prophet, therefore, will be said to have fulfilled the prophecy. To kill Satan, however, is not to kill him outright, so that his influence no longer remains in the world. This has never happened and never will happen. Satanic influences and temptations must remain. Without them faith will have no value. To kill Satan, therefore, is to reduce evil influences and propensities to a minimum, and to promote good influences and dispositions to a maximum. The Church cannot lay claim to this part of the prophecy because the Church has declared the Law a curse and cast doubt over the very conceptions of good and evil. The words in the prophecy—“he will guide you into all truth”—we have already explained in our discussion of the prophecy contained in Deuteronomy 18:18.

Of the promise—“he will show you things to come”—we need only say that no other Prophet has told the world of things to come so much as has the Prophet of Islam.

Of the sign—“he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak”—we should say that the description can apply only to the Prophet of Islam. The New and the Old Testaments do not contain a single book in which man’s word has not been mixed with God’s. The Quran is nothing but the word of God from beginning to end. Not a word even of the Prophet is to be found in it, let alone anybody else’s.

The last sign in the prophecy—“he will glorify me”—also applies to the Holy Prophet. For it is he who cleared Jesus of the charge that, having died on the Cross, he met an accursed death; and of the charge that, having claimed Godhead for himself, Jesus had been guilty of disobedience and disloyalty to God; and of the other foul charges which the Jews had brought against him.

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

The verses contain a reference to the prophecy in Deuteronomy and the clear hint that until the Prophet promised in the prophecy in Deuteronomy has come, the second coming of Jesus will not take place. The prophecy in Deuteronomy said that the Promised Prophet would bring a new Law. Reference to this in The Acts means clearly that the teaching of Jesus will be superseded by the teaching of the Promised One. A new Law can have no other meaning. The Prophet promised in the prophecy in Deuteronomy (and in this passage from The Acts), therefore, was to mark the last stage in the spiritual advance of man. For he was to supersede Moses and Jesus and give the world a new Teaching and a new Law.

The passage from The Acts points to another significant sign of the Promised One. It says:

All the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.118

The prophecy of Moses we have already cited. As Jesus came after Samuel, this verse from The Acts can only mean that from Moses to Jesus every Prophet has foretold the advent of a Prophet, which means that until this Prophet appears the spiritual foundations on which man must build will not have been completely laid. As this Prophet, according to the signs of the Bible, is no other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, we must admit that the Holy Prophet is the Promised One of all Prophets and his Law is the Law prophesied by all Prophets. Who can then say that even while the Old and the New Testaments existed in the world the Quran was a redundance? All the earlier Prophets have pointed to the need of the Quran and prophesied about it. No reasonable plea can be urged by their followers now against the Quran. We can only say that if they deny the need of the Quran, they will cast doubts on the truth of their own Prophets and the truth of the prophecies which they made. Did not Moses say:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him.119

1 Tarikh-ul-Khamis, Vol.I

2 Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Bad’-ul-Wahi

3 I Samuel 25:32

4 I Kings 1:48

5 I Chronicles 16:36

6 II Chronicles 6:4

7 Psalms 72:18

8 Matthew 7:6

9 Gotama Smrti:12

10 Atharva-Veda IV, 22:7

11 Sama-Veda Part II, ix, iii, 9

12 Sama-Veda Part II, ix, iii, 8

13 Atharva-Veda XIX, 28:4

14 Gotama-dharm Sut. v

15 Manu Dharm Shastra

16 Holy Quran, 10:17

17 Holy Quran, 3:165

18 Holy Quran, 9:128

19 Holy Quran, 39:72

20 Holy Quran, 6:131

21 Holy Quran, 23:33

22 Holy Quran, 16:85

23 Holy Quran, 7:66

24 Holy Quran, 7:74

25 Holy Quran, 7:86

26 Holy Quran, 11:63

27 Holy Quran, 11:88

28 Matthew 5:17-18

29 Matthew 15:24

30 Matthew 18:11

31 Matthew 28:19

32 Matthew 19:28

33 Matthew 15:24

34 Matthew 15:26

35 Matthew 10:5-6

36 Matthew 10:23

37 Acts 11:19

38 Acts 11:2-3

39 Holy Quran, 7:159

40 (Suk. 20a) Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol.5, p.322

41 (Sanh. 21b) Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol.5, p.322

42 (Ab. R. N. xxxiv) Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol.5, p.322

43 Apocrypha; II ESDRAS, 14

44 Apocrypha; II ESDRAS, 14

45 Sahih-ul-Muslim, Kitab-ul-Iman

46 Sahih-ul-Bukhari; Kitab-ul-‘Itq

47 Holy Quran, 2:244

48 Holy Quran, 20:91

49 Holy Quran, 7:84

50 Genesis 9:25

51 Matthew 21:9

52 Matthew 27:46

53 John 3:2

54 Mark 5:41

55 Commentary of the Bible, Horn, 1882, Vol.4, Pt.2. chap.2

56 Eusebius in his History of the Church, Vol.3, chap.3

57 Encyclopaedia Biblica, p.4993, Vol. IV

58 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12th edition, p.646, Vol. III

59 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12th edition, p.643, Vol. III

60 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12th edition, p.643, Vol. III

61 The quotations are from the translation by Sir William Jones, 1869.

62 Genesis 12:2-3

63 Holy Quran, 2:125-29

64 Deuteronomy 18:15

65 Deuteronomy 18:18-20

66 Matthew 5:17-18

67 Galatians, 3:12-13

68 Psalms, 132:11; Jeremiah, 23:5

69 Holy Quran, 2:76

70 Holy Quran, 5:4

71 Deuteronomy 18:20

72 Holy Quran, 5:68

73 Holy Quran, 72:27-28

74 Fasl-ul-Khitab

75 Holy Quran, 3:5

76 Holy Quran, 3:6

77 Sahih-ul-Bukhari

78 Holy Quran, 3:6

79 Song of Solomon, 5:9

80 Song of Solomon, 5:13

81 Song of Solmon, 4:16

82 Song of Solomon, 1:6

83 Holy Quran, 7:159

84 Holy Quran, 9:100

85 Holy Quran, 33:24

86 Holy Quran, 100:2-6

87 Isaiah 5:30

88 Matthew 5:17-18

89 Mark 2:19-20

90 Matthew 27:42, 44

91 Matthew, 21:4, 5 and 27:11; Luke, 23:1-3

92 Matthew, 21:33-44

93 Matthew, 21:40

94 Matthew, 21:41

95 Matthew, 21:42-44

96 Holy Quran, 58:13

97 Holy Quran, 42:39

98 Izalat-ul-Khifa’ ‘an Khilafat-ul-Khulafa’

99 Deuteronomy, 18:18

100 Holy Quran, 8:18

101 Holy Quran, 48:11

102 Holy Quran, 34:29-31

103 Sirat Ibni Hisham

104 Sahih-ul-Bukhari

105 Isaiah, 9:7

106 The Caliphate; Futuh-ul-Buldan

107 Isaiah, 9:7

108 Holy Quran, 22:79

109 Daniel, 2:31-35

110 Daniel 2:37-45

111 Daniel 2:33

112 Daniel 2:34-35

113 Daniel 2:35

114 Matthew, 23:39

115 John 1:21

116 John 1:21

117 John 1:25

118 The Acts 3:24

119 Deuteronomy 18:22