C.G. PFANDER, D.D

The Mizanu'l Haqç^

'Balance of Truth'

on r\

HE MiZÄNU'L HAQC^

('Balance of Truth')

C.G.Pfander, d.d.

Revised and Enlarged: W.St.Clair Tisdall, m.a., d.d.

[GHT OF LIFE ■ VILLACH • AUSTRIA

LIGHT OF LIFE • P. O. BOX 18 • A-9503 VILLACH-AUS

INTRODUCTION

The Mizan-Ul-Haqq has become well known in all countries of the Middle East after its first publication in Persia 1835. Several translations and reprints prove the importance of this book. Perhaps the way of discussion seems questionable to some theologians in our century, but until today the book touches the central points in sincere dialogues between Muslims and Christians. Everyone who is searching for a Gospel-concentrated answer to Islam finds many details and helpful arguments in this book.

Therefore, we do not hesitate to reprint such a book of fundamental importance which was written by Dr. Pfander and thoroughly revised and enlarged in 1910 by W. St. Clair Tisdall. It may be that some methods in mission work have changed, but Islam is still the same and needs a difinitive answer based on the fulness of the Gospel. You will find such an approach in this book which his now published in several languages 150 years after it was first printed.

The Publishers

Villach, March 1986

CONTENTS

page

Introduction 5

PART I

In proof that the Old Testament and the New are the Word of God, and that they have been neither corrupted nor abrogated.

chap.

1. Testimony of the Qur'án to the Bible . . 41

2. The Old Testament and the New have never been

abrogated in (1) their facts, (2) their doctrines, and (3) their moral principles 55

3. The Old Testament and the New Testament which are

now in circulation are those which existed in the hands of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's time, and to which the Qur'án bears witness . . -77

4. The Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament and of the

New have not undergone corruption, whether before or after Muhammad's time ioi

PART II

Of which the aim is to set forth the Principal Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, and to show that their

teaching is in conformity with the criteria of the

True Revelation as stated in the Introduction.

chap.

I. A Brief Account of the Main Contents of the Bible 126

2. The Attributes of God Most High, as taught in the

Holy Scriptures 138

2. Man's Original Condition, his present fallen state, and

his need of Salvation from Sin and from Eternal Death . . . 141

2. The Way in which the Lord Jesus Christ has wrought

out Salvation for all men 155

chap. page

2. The Doctrine of the Divine and Undivided Trinity in

the Unity of God Most High . 177

2. The Life and Conduct of a True Christian . . .192

3. A Summary of the Main Reasons for believing that the

Old Testament and the New contain God's True

Revelation 202

VIII. In what Manner the Christian Faith was propagated

in the first few Centuries 214

PART III

A Candid Inquiry into the Claim of Islam to be God's Final Revelation.

chap.

I. An Explanation of the Reason and Scope of the Inquiry 222

2. Does the Bible contain Prophecies concerning Mu

hammad? 227

2. Can the Language and Style of the Qur'in be deemed

miraculous and be considered a proof that it is God's Word? 253

2. An Examination of the Contents of the Qur'an, in order

to decide whether these prove its Inspiration . 268

V. An Inquiry into Muhammad's alleged Miracles, in order to learn what Evidence in support of his Claim to be a Prophet of God is thereby afforded . 306

6. An Examination of certain Parts of Muhammad's Con

duct, as referred to in the Qur'&n and described by Muslim Historians and Commentators, in order to ascertain to what degree his Claim to the Prophetic Office is thereby substantiated . . . 327

6. An Inquiry into the manner in which Isl£m at first

spread in Arabia itself and in the neighbouring lands 349

6. Conclusion 368

PART I

In proof that the Old Testament and the New are the Word of God (¿T and that they have

been neither corrupted nor abrogated.

CHAPTER I

TESTIMONY OF THE QUR'AN TO THE BIBLE

The learned have divided Evidence into two kinds, Intellectual (jic) and Authoritative (jii). Under the

former we include both External and Internal Evidence.

Were we writing this book for the benefit of Unbelievers, Deists (J,ji»ljf) or Idolaters, it would be necessary in the first place to show what External Evidence we have in support of our belief that the books of the Old and of the New Testament are ancient, uncorrupted and generally reliable, and that they contain a Revelation from God Most High. We should also have to relate the history of each of these books, so far as we know it, to tell how the Canon of Holy Scripture was formed, and what external evidence we have to justify us in assigning the various books to the writers whose names they bear. We should then carefully examine the Internal Evidence afforded by the books themselves. Then we should state the result of our inquiry.

All this has already been done by Christians again and again. One reason for this is, that from very early times unbelievers have assailed our Sacred Books, and for our own satisfaction we have had to examine all the evidence for and against them. Moreover, we Christians believe that we are bound to hold such an examination because of the precept, "Prove all things" (i Thess. v. 21). Our Reason tells us that obedience to this precept is acceptable to God, who has given us intellect that we might use it aright to His glory. Truth is one of the Divine Attributes, and as such it can never perish, but must be eternal. Therefore the man whose heart's desire is to find the Truth and live according to God's most Holy Will has nothing to fear from an earnest and most thorough examination of the grounds of his faith. When he has made it, he is able not only to stand firm on the rock of truth himself, but also to help others tossing on the sea of doubt and uncertainty. His faith is now worthy of the name, and is no longer mere imitation (¿.liT: )') or bigotry or ignorance.

The libraries of Christian Scholars ar'e full of books of Christian Evidences. But this is not the place to dwell upon this point, for we are writing not for unbelievers, but for our Muslim brethren, who accept the Qur'in as God's latest revelation to man, and believe all that is contained therein to be God's own Word (¿1 ^). For Muslims it is most important to know what the Qur an says about the Bible, and the more so because among the ignorant there is prevalent an entire misconception on this point. It is not too much to say that the idea which most Muslims have as to the teaching of the Qur'in on this most important subject is quite contrary to what their own Sacred Book really does teach. Every true Muslim is therefore likely to profit by joining us in the inquiry, " What testimony does the Qur'&n bear to the Bible, and what may we learn about the latter from the former ? "

It is evident to all that the Qur'in itself bears witness to the fact that in Muhammad's time there existed in Arabia both Christians and Jews, who differed from one another in religion.[1] These are both called in the Qur'&n " The 2 People of the Book". The Qur'in testifies to the fact that the Book from which these two religious communities received their title still existed^1 among them. As parts of this Book the Qur'&n expressly mentions the Taurat, the Zabfir, and the Injil.2 Moreover, the Quran states that these books were sent down by God Most High,3 and that the Qur'&n itself was given afterwards to confirm^4 them. It also teaches that those who reject these books will be punished in the next world,5 and states that the books of the Old and those of the New Testament agree with each other in their general teaching.0 Since the Qur'dn says all this about the Bible, it is not necessary for us to adduce here the same degree of proof in attestation of the Bible which it would be necessary to adduce were we writing to convince an unbeliever.

It may, however, be said: " (i) You Christians cannot logically appeal to the Qur'dn, for you do not accept it as from God. (2) Besides this, the Books now circulated among Christians as the Old and the New Testaments are not.those to which the Quran refers, or at least not in their present state, for they have become corrupted, or at any rate they are annulled."

In answer to this we grant that the first of these objections would be quite conclusive against any attempt made by Christians to rely upon the Qur'Sn for proof of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. But we do not in any way whatever rely upon the Qur'in to prove our Scriptures for us. What we are doing is quite a different thing. We are endeavouring to show Muslims that they, as believers in the Qur'in, are bound to accept what it says about the Jewish and the Christian Books. This argument is a fair one, unless the second of the above objections can be proved

1 Sfirahs ii. 107; iii. 22, 87 ; v. 47, 72 ; vii. 168; x. 94.

5 [The Law, The Psalms, The Gospel.]

8 (a) The Law: Sfirahs iii. 2; vi. 91, 154; xi. 20, 112; (6) The Gospel: Sfirahs v. 50; lvii. 27; (c) The Psalms: Sfirahs xvii. 57; xxi. 105. * Sfirah xxxv. 28. 5 Sfirah xl. 72, 73.

' Sfirah v. 50.

to be well-founded. This second objection, however, though it seems distinctly opposed to the Quranic statement that God's words cannot^1 be changed, will be examined, with God's help, in the other chapters of this Part of our present volume. But before undertaking this inquiry we venture to adduce, with all courtesy and respect for our Muslim brethren, a few of the leading passages of the Qur'&n in which testimony is borne to the Bible. We shall also appeal to leading Muslim commentators, in order to show that we rightly understand the meaning of the verses which we quote.

It is clear from the Qur'in itself that "the Book" that is to say, the Bible, existed among " the People of the Book " (v^JT J*1) in Muhammad's time, and was not "a name devoid of the thing named". This is evident from many passages, of which we content ourselves with quoting only a few.

For instance, in Sftrah v. (A1 Ml'idah), ver. 72, Muhammad receives a command to speak thus: " Say thou: ' O People of the Book, ye are [founded] upon nothing, until ye observe [or establish] the Taurit and the Injil and that which hath been sent down unto you by your Lord.'" Regarding the occasion on which this^2 verse was revealed, the historian, Ibn Ish&q, is stated by Ibn Hishfim, in the Stratu'r Rasiil, to have spoken thus : " R£fi' ibn H4rithah and Sal&m ibn Mushkim and Milik ibn Az Zaif and Rifi' ibn Harmalah came to the Apostle of God. They said, 'O Muhammad, dost thou not assert that thou art [standing] on the creed of Abraham and his religion, and believest in that which is with us of the Taur&t and testifiest that it is from God, truth ?' He said, ' Yes; but ye have innovated, and ye deny what is therein of that covenant which was made with you, and ye have concealed of it that which ye were commanded to explain to men. Wherefore I am clear from your innovations.' They

1 Sflrahs vi. 34, 115; x. 65; xviii. 26.

' [The Arabic is quoted in Sir W. Muir's Testimony of tht Coran, S. P.C. K., 1896, pp. 209, 210.] said,' Verily then we hold by what is in our hands, and truly we are [based] upon the truth and the Evidence, and we believe not in thee, and follow thee not.' Accordingly God (may He be honoured and glorified) sent down concerning them " this verse. Here we see that Muhammad declared his acceptation of the Scriptures then current among the Jews, though he repudiated the " innovations " which he rightly declared they had introduced into the outward practice of their religion, In this respect Muhammad agreed with what Christ said to the Jews in His own time (Matt, xxiii. 16-24). Both this verse of the Qur'an, however, and Ibn Isheiq's narrative show that the Jews then had the Taur&t and that the Christians had the Injll; for there would be no meaning in commanding them to observe (l^jjij the precepts contained in those books, if the books nad perished or been previously corrupted. In the former case it would be impossible to obey the command: in the latter case obedience would entail their going astray.

In Stirah ii. (A1 Baqarah), ver. 107, we read : " And the Jews say, ' The Christians are [founded] upon nothing,' and the Christians say, 'The Jews are [founded] upon nothing': and they are reading the Book." The tense of the latter verb (¿ilJ, " they are reading aloud, reciting, or meditating ") shows that the Scriptures were then in the hands of both Jews and Christians, otherwise the Preterite might be used but not the Present, for it could not be truly said that they were then able to read them and actually were in the habit of doing so.

In Sfirah x. (Ytinus), ver. 94, it is stated that God said: "And if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down unto thee, then ask those who are reading the Book previous to thee." Ar R&zi mentions some difference of opinion as to whether Muhammad is here addressed or not : but he tells us that even those who thought he was not, explained the verse thus,—that God was here speaking to everyone who doubted

Muhammad's words, and saying, " O man, if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee of guidance by Muhammad's tongue, then ask the People of the Book, that they may prove to thee the truth of his position as a Prophet." This brings Ar Rizi to the question, How could God refer people to the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians if these books were really corrupted or altered (ipLl) ? His

reply is not a very satisfactory one, for all he can say is that, if any passages still remained to bear testimony to Muhammad, their evidence would be all the clearer. Ar R^zi's [1] personal opinion is that the verse was a command addressed to Muhammad himself, providing for the possibility of doubt as to his prophetic office arising in his own mind. But in any case the verse proves that the Jews and Christians were then in the habit of reading their Scriptures, and had been doing so before Muhammad's time. This was evidently BaizSwi's opinion, for he thus paraphrases the latter part of the verse: " For[2] verily it is firmly believed among them, established in their books, according as We have imparted it to thee." And he adds : " The significance is the confirmation thereof" (i.e. of the revelation made to Muhammad) and an appeal for evidence to what is in the Holy Scriptures, and that the Qur'in confirms what is in them. The two Jaldls (uX>Ul) paraphrase the verse thus:[3] " And if thou art in doubt, O Muhammad, as to what We have sent down to thee,—of stories, for instance,—then ask those who are reading the Taurit previous to thee, for verily it is established among them : they will inform thee of its truth."

In Stirah vii. (A1 AW), ver. 168, it is said regarding the Jews: "They have inherited the Book. . . . Was there not taken upon them the covenant of the

Book, that they should not say concerning God anything but the truth ? And they have studied what is in it." On this passage Baiz&wi's 1 comment is : " They have inherited the Book, i.e. the Taur&t, from their predecessors : they read it, and they are aware of what is in it."

In Stirah iii. (A1 Tmrin), ver. 22, it is thus written : " Hast thou not looked at those who were brought a portion of the Book ? They are invited to the Book of God, that it may judge between them. Then a section of them turn back, and they prevent." Baiziwi explains " a portion of the Book " as " The Taurit,2 or the Heavenly Books in general", and says " The in- viter was Muhammad, and the Book of God the Qur an or the Taurlt. For it is related that he entered their school: then said to him Na'im ibn 'Amr and A1 H&rith ibn Zaid, ' To what religion dost thou belong ?' Then he said, ' To the Religion of Abraham.' Accordingly they both said to him, 'Verily Abraham was a Jew.' Then said he, ' Come ye to the Taur&t: verily it is between us and you.' Then they both declined. Accordingly the verse was sent down." Here again we perceive .that the Jews in Muhammad's time possessed the Taur&t, and that Muhammad appealed to it with confidence to decide whatever matter was that day in dispute between himself and them, regarding which subject of dispute there is a difference of opinion among commentators.

In Stirah iii. (A1 'Imran), ver. 87, it is said : " All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel forbade unto himself, before that the Taurat was sent down. Say thou : ' Then bring ye the Taurit: then read it aloud, if ye are truthful.' " Baizawl's^3 comment on the final clause is : "A command for them to defend their cause with their Book, and a reproach to them from what was in it, through the fact that what had not been [originally] forbidden had been forbidden to them because of their wrong-doing. It is related

1 Vol. i, p. 350. 2 Vol. i, pp. 151, 152.

' Vol. i, p. 166.

that when Muhammad said this to them, they were astonished, and did not venture to bring forth the Taurit." This remark of the commentator is an admission that they then possessed it, as indeed is clear from the whole verse.

In SGrah v. (A1 Md'idah), ver. 47, we read : " And how shall they make thee their judge, since with them is the Taur&t ? in it is God's judgement." Baiz&wi's note on this is : " An[1] expression of surprise at their making one in whom they do not believe their judge, since the judgement is announced in the Book which is with them."

We content ourselves with quoting these few passages from the Qur'dn to prove what men of learning know for a certainty to be true ; that is to say, that the Bible^2 was in existence in Muhammad's time in the hands of the " People of the Book This proof would of itself suffice; but we have others, one of which we now proceed to adduce.

The Qur'&n itself contains certain passages which it actually quotes from the Old and the New Testament. That is to say, certain verses are taken from the Bible into the Qur'&n, and the Qur'in states that these verses are to be found in the Bible.

For instance, in Sftrah v. (A1 Mei'idah), ver. 49, it is said " And We wrote concerning them in it" (that is, in the Taur&t, as verses 47 and 48 state), that " Life for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth." This is a quotation from Exod. xxi. 23-25.

Again in Stirah xxi. (A1 Anbiyi), ver. 105, we read : " And We have written in the Psalms after the Reminder that' As for the earth, My servants the righteous shall inherit it'." This is a quotation from Ps. xxxvii. 29. Baiz&wi explains "the Psalms " (,ojJ*) as " the book of David ".3

In Surah vii. (A1 A'rkV), ver. 38, it is written : " Verily those that have declared Our signs to be lies, and have been too proud for them, unto them the gates of heaven shall not be opened, nor shall they enter Paradise, until the camel shall pass in at the eye of the needle." Here there is a quotation from the Gospel, for the mention of the difficulty of a camel passing through the eye of a needle is found in Matt. xix. 24; Mark x. 25; and Luke xviii. 25.

These three passages, one from the Taurat, the second from the Zabilr, and the third from the Injll,clearly show that the Sacred Scriptures then in the hands of the Jews and Christians were those which we now possess and call by the very same names. All men of understanding will clearly perceive this. For, just as every learned man who in years to come recognizes the pieces of poetry which we have quoted in the Introduction to this Treatise as taken from such books as the Mathnavi of Jalalu'ddin Ritml, the Diwdn of'All ibn Abi T&lib, the poems of Sa'di, or some other well-known writer, will at once conclude that these works as a whole were in existence in the present century, so every attentive reader of the Qur'an would recognize that the passages above quoted from the Bible proved the existence of the Bible in Muhammad's time- The proof is still further strengthened by the fact that the Qur'an in two of the cases actually mentions the name of the book from which it is quoting.

Besides this, many of the narratives in the Qur'an, for example that of Joseph in SGrah xii. (Ytisuf), are clearly those in the Bible, though sometimes told somewhat more in accord with the later traditions (v^'uipi) of the Jews than with the text of the Bible, as has been shown in the book styled The Original Sources of the Quran (^^LilT^U* j pLftj^fy^-ij)- So also the Qur'an contains many other references to the Bible, of which it is un-

in general and " the Reminder" the " Preserved Tablet ". He himself says " the Reminder" is the Taui at.

d

necessary to mention any except that referred toinStirah iii. (Al Tmr^n), ver. 87, above, where it is impossible to understand what is said in the verse unless we turn to Gen. xxxii. 22-32, where we are told how Jacob got the name Is:ael given him by God, and how after that the children of Jacob held it unlawful to eat " the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh" (ver. 32).

Besides all this, in the Traditions (c^Ul) there are a few passages in which Muhammad is said to have used language which is really a quotation from the Bible. Of this we give only one specimen, but it is the most remarkable of all. In the Mishkat »pGu). p. 487,

of the edition of a. h. 1297, in the first chapter of the Book on " The Description of Paradise and Its People ", we find the following Tradition from Ab& Hurairah : "The^1 Apostle of God said: ' God Most High hath said, I have prepared for My servants the righteous what eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it occurred to the heart of humanity.' " There can be no doubt that this is a distinct quotation from 1 Cor. ii. 9. It is important to notice this, because Muhammad here states that this verse is a direct utterance of God Most High Himself, whereas many Muslim writers, learned men (and not only ignorant people), deny that Paul was anNapostle and thai his Epistles are inspired.

The Bible is generally divided into two volumes : the Old Testament, which contains the sacred books of the Jewish Canon, composed in Hebrew, with the exception of a few chapters which are in Aramaic; and theNew Testament, composed in Greek. The Jews refuse to accept the New Testament, but we Christians accept both. Hence Baizdwi in his commentary 2 on Surah xxix. (Al'AnqabGt), ver. 46, speaks of us as "the people

5) L yJJZR ^U ¿¿¿cl _ ¿JU;' ¿T JU _ ^ ¿f Jls 1

.jii, Jjle- Jo» ^ e:.«»... ^js.

s Vol. ii, p. 99.

of the two books " (^liCjf But in the Qur an the Bible is generally referred to as " The Book " (MLS3l), though three of its principal parts are also mentioned by name. These are the Taurit, the Zabflr, and the Injil. The Jews divide the Old Testament itself into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, as we see in Luke xxiv. 44- This division can be traced back to about b.c. 130.[1] At the present time the Jews term the third part " the Books ' But as it

begins with the Psalms, it is so styled in the Gospel and in the Qur'&n (¿¿jtf) alike. The Qur'&n calls the first part the TaurEt (^l^l), which is only the Arabic form of its Hebrew name Tdrah. Sometimes the whole of the Old Testament is named by Muslims the Taur&t, because this part begins the whole volume. The Qur'&n often refers also to the Prophets of the Old Testament, as, for example, in Siirah ii. (A1 Baqarah), ver. 130 : " Say ye, ' We have believed in God, and in what hath been sent down unto us, and what hath been sent down unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and what Moses was given and Jesus, and what the Prophets were given from their Lord! " The same words are repeated in SO rah iii. (Arimran),ver. 78. Hence it is clear that the Qur'&n agrees with the New Testament in naming as inspired each and all of the three great divisions of the Old Testament.

Christians often apply the title of " the Gospel" to the whole of the New Testament, as apparently the Qur'<Ln does. One reason for this is that the New Testament begins with the Four Gospels. But a still better reason is that the word " Gospel " or " good news " <¿1 J-^0 expresses the main purport of

the whole book. This is clear from Mark xiii. 10. and very many other passages.

As it is admitted that the whole of the New Testament was in Muhammad's time circulated very widely among Christians, and since not only does the Qur'fin quote a passage found in three Gospels (Sarah vii. 38 : compare Matt. xix. 24 ; Mark x. 25 ; Luke xviii. 25), .but Muhammad himself, as we have seen, quotes a verse from another part of the New Testament, therefore it is evident to all who are men of understanding and free from prejudice that the Qur'fin refers to the Bible as it then existed among the Jews and Christians as containing a Divine Revelation. But besides this the Qur'&n always speaks of the Bible with great reverence, and gives it the very highest titles, styling it " the Word of God " (¿it pf: Sarah ii. 70), the Furqan (Sarahs ii. 50 : xxi. 49), " a light and a Reminder " " the Book of God " (Sarah ii. 95 : thus Baizdwi and the two Jal&ls explain the verse : compare Sarah iii. 22, and Sarah v. 48), and other high titles.

Moreover, the Qur'in states that the inspiration bestowed on Muhammad was the same as that given to the former prophets, as we learn from such passages as the following :—(1) Stirah iii. (A1 'Imran), ver. 66 : " Say thou : ' Verily the guidance is God's guidance, that anyone should be given like to what ye have been given.'" (2) Sarah iv. (An Nisi'), ver. 161 Verily We have inspired thee as We inspired Noah and the Prophets after him," &c. (3) SOrah xlii. (Ash Shard'), ver. 1 : " Thus doth God the Glorious, the Wise, inspire thee and those who were before thee." The word which is used to describe the " descent" of the Qur'an

9

(Jpi) is also used of the earlier books. Hence, since things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other, it follows that the Qur'&n teaches us that the Old and New Testament are as truly " sent down "by God and as truly "inspired" (^j) as the Our'&n itself claims to be. Therefore it is that the Qur'3n commands Muslims to profess as firm belief in all the previous Scriptures as in the Qur'an (Sarahs ii. 130: iii. 78). They are also informed that the Qur'dn was sent down for the purpose of confirming the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, as, for instance, we read in Sûrah iii. (Â1 'Imrân), ver. 2 : " He hath 1 sent down upon thee the Book, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Taurât and the Injîl before as a guidance unto men : and He hath sent down the Distinction (^Isji)." It is said, moreover, that those who reject the Book will be punished by God for doing so, for in Sûrah xl. (AI Mu'min), vers. 72, 73, it is written : " Those who hold the Book and that wherewith We have sent Our Apostles to be a lie, they therefore shall know, when the collars and the chains are on their necks : they shall be dragged into the hot water, then into the fire shall they be dragged." Baizâwî in commenting^2 upon these verses gives several different explanations of what is meant by "the Book ". He says, " the Quran, or the Heavenly Books in general," and explains " that wherewith We have sent Our Apostles" as meaning "the rest of the Books, or Inspiration and the Religious Laws ". Even if, therefore, we deny that in these verses "the Book" is that from which " the People of the Book " derive this title, yet the other words quite clearly denote the Old and the New Testament.

The Qur an also states that the Old Testament and the New agree with one another in their general teaching, for in several passages we find statements similar to the following from Sûrah v. (Al Mâ'idah), ver. 50 : " And We caused Jesus, Son of Mary, to follow in their " [the Prophets'] " footsteps, confirming what was before Him of the Taurât, and We brought Him the Injîl, in it is guidance and light, confirming what was before it of the Taurât, and a guidance and a warning to the pious."

From what has been said in this chapter we conclude : (1) that in Muhammad's time the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, containing the Taurât, the Zabûr, the Prophets' books, the Injîl. and the

1 Many similar verses occur in the Qur'ân : e.g. Sûrahs ii. 38, 83 85.9'. 95; v- 52; vi- 92; xxxv- 28; xlvi-

1 Vol. ii, p. 216.

Epistles of the Apostles (besides a few other tractates) were in existence among the Jews and Chri. <ans : (2) that the Qur'in states positively that these were given by Divine Inspiration; (3) that the Qur'&n, claiming for itself the highest style of Inspiration and the highest titles, states that the Bible is due to the very same Inspiration as itself; (4) that the Qur'&n gives, to the Bible the titles of Book of God, Word of God (¿1" Furq&n, Zikr, Light, Guidance, Mercy, &c., being the very same which it claims for itself; (5) that the Qur'Sn teaches that Muhammad was Divinely directed to appeal to the Bible and to bid the Jews and Christians take it as their guide : (6) that he did refer the Jews to it as authoritative; (7) that Muslims are in the Qur'An commanded to profess to believe in the Bible just as they do in the Qur'&n : (8) and that very terrible punishments in the next world are threatened to those who reject either the Bible or the Qur'&n.

CHAPTER II

THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW HAVE NEVER BEEN ABROGATED, AND CAN NEVER BE ABROGATED IN (i) THEIR FACTS, (2) THEIR DOCTRINES, AND (3) THEIR MORAL PRINCIPLES

From what has been said in the first chapter of this Treatise it is evident that all Muslims who really believe and accept the Qur'&n are bound in duty to study, honour, and obey " the Book of God ", that is to say, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testaments.

But some deny that this conclusion is correct, because they assert (1) that the Old and the New Testaments have been abrogated. Others say (2) that the books now in circulation as the Bible, and generally received by Jews and Christians as their Holy Scriptures, are not those referred to in the Qur'4n as such. Others again say (3) that, if the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are really those mentioned in the Qur'in, they have at least been altered and corrupted, and therefore are no longer worthy of reverence. With these two latter objections we propose, God helping us, to deal in later chapters. In the present chapter we devote our attention to the question whether it is true that the Old Testament and the New, that is to say, the Taurit, the ZabOr and the Injll, have been abrogated. It is granted that, if these objections are correct, our argument in Chapter I is thereby nullified : but at the same time the effect on the authority of the Qur'in itself will not be favourable, as will be clear to every thoughtful man.

Be it noticed that some Muslim writers distinctly assert that the Bible has been abrogated. For instance,

Baizâwî^1 in his comments on Sûrah ix. (At Taubah), ver. 29, explains the words, "who profess not the Religion of the Truth," by saying, " which abrogates the rest of the religions, and annuls them," and he speaks of " their original religion, which is abrogated as to faith and conduct". Again, in the book entitled UpT^l^l chapter 36, occurs the following passage : " Every^2 prophet who was in the days of Moses and after him was upon the highroad of Moses and his religious law and obedient to his book, until the time of Jesus. And every prophet who was in the days of Jesus and after Him was upon the highroad of Jesus and His religious law, and obedient to His book, until the time of our prophet Muhammad. And the religious law of Muhammad shall not be abrogated until the day of the Resurrection." Here it is distinctly implied that Jesus' law abrogated that of Moses, and that Muhammad's law abrogated that of Jesus. And Âkhûnd Mullâ Muhammad Taqqi yi Kâshânî, in his Persian

work entitled ^Ilfj^ly j^UoJÎ ¿Au, finished in a. h. 1285,3 says (p. 166) : " For the People of Islâm knowledge has been acquired that now Muhammad is Prophet, and his religion abrogates the religion of the previous prophets." This view is accepted by almost all the ignorant and by many of the learned in Muslim lands.

Yet it should be noted that there is not a single word in the Qur'ân, nor is there a passage known to us in any of the Traditions (e^Ll) current among either Sunnîs or

1 Vol. i, p. 383.

ir~ i ds-r* e^1-*-^ ils^1* ^ J r^-1 J o^lf* JT*

i±*>. J ^Ji-c J.131 j (X ^O JTj _ £ Jj^c Jjll yfctf L*>Uj

XU.-* Ulo wkft Lolîj iixJr^1 j ^ Ji--« cljl® J^

• ^llj it j^Lff J^ar* hûjà _}

c*J > t> »J--, J^ cs^ (J? s

Shi'ites, which supports this opinion. Indeed, the whole tenor of the Quran is entirely opposed to it. The verb nasakha (^L'i), with the sense of " to abrogate ",

occurs only twice in the Qur'in (in Silrahs ii. 100 and xxii. 51), and in neither of these instances is it used in reference to any part of the Old Testament or of the New. On the contrary, it is used of the abrogation of certain verses of the Qur'&n itself, of which Muslim 'Ulamd say that 225 have been abrogated. Stirah ii. (A1 Baqarah), ver. 100, runs thus: "Whatever We abrogate of a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better than it, or its like : dost thou not know that God is Mighty ovei everything ? " It is true that Baiziwl[1] tells us that several different readings of the verse occur, e.g. " Whatsoever We cause thee to forget of a verse, or We abrogate it", &c. : but in none is the sense changed at all. The reference is to the abrogation of certain Qur'dnic verses, and to them only. A good illustration of the meaning is given in Baizfiwi's 2 commentary on .SArah xxii. (A1 Hajj), ver. 51, where he tells us the story of how God abrogated in Stirah liii. (An Najm), vers. 19, 20, the words, " These 3 are the exalted Swans, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for," which Satan had beguiled Muhammad into uttering in regard to A1 Lat, Manit, and A1 'Uzza, three Arabian goddesses. The same tale is told by Yahyi' and Jal^lu'ddln in their commentaries on Stirah xxii. (A1 Hajj), ver. 51, and by Ibn IshSq in Ibn Hisham's Siratu'r RasOl (vol. i, pp. 127 sqq.). Tabari and the Mawahibu'I Luduniyyak also narrate the tale. There can therefore be no doubt as to what is referred to by the words jj! in this latter verse.

Although the fancy that the descent of the Zabfir abrogated the Taur&t, and that the Injil in like manner abrogated the ZabGr, is entirely devoid of foundation in the Qur'&n and Traditions yet it is so widely

held and so often asserted publicly among Muslims that it may be worth while to quote a book of some authority among them to confute it. Shaikh H£j! Rahma- tu'll£h of Dehli, in his IzharuH Haqq (¿Jf^UW), published in a. h. 1284, vol. i, pp. 11 and 12, says that the statement that the Taurit was abrogated by the Zabtir and the Zabtir by the appearance of the Injil "is^1 a falsehood of which there is no trace in the Qur'&n or in the Commentaries; nay, there is no trace of it in any authoritative book belonging to the People of I slim. And in our opinion the ZabAr does not abrogate the Taur&t, nor is it abrogated by the Injil. David was subject to the religious law of Moses, and the Zabtir was (a collection of) prayers." This writer asserts that only the ignorant and the common people among Muslims hold the erroneous idea which he is confuting.

It is true that such an idle fancy can have arisen and can continue to exist only through want of knowledge of the Qur'&n in the first place, and of the Old Testament and the New in the second. For if anyone carefully and prayerfully studies the Bible, when he comes to understand its teaching he will clearly perceive that the doctrines of the Old Testament and of the New are in harmony with one another. By this we mean that their teaching is given in a definite order of instruction, and in this is gradually unfolded to men the knowledge of God's Eternal Purpose.

In the Old Testament we are informed how men were created by God Most High, how they fell into sin, how a Divine promise was then given of the coming of a Man born of the seed of the woman, how (many

}\ * ^ ¿-J, jy$\ J^. il^l ^ 1

>31 ^jfli ^ ^ j a j\ * ji^-uui j y_3 Jjii 1 j £i years later, when all the nations had wandered far from the truth) God called Abraham and made a covenant with him, declaring that the Promised Saviour would be born of his progeny through Isaac. We are then told that this promise was renewed to Isaac and his son Jacob; that the children of Israel were trained in Egypt and Canaan for the work to which God had called them. We learnl also how the Taurit was given to Moses, and in it these promises were recorded and fresh ones added. Prophets were raised up generation after generation, to reprove the Israelites for their sins and to explain God's will. These prophets, one succeeding another, gave teaching which gradually grew in spirituality, and taught those who were pious and faithful to attain to a fuller knowledge of God. Prophet after prophet explained more and more clearly the work of the coming Saviour, telling beforehand where He was to be born, what He would do, and what He was to suffer. Then in the New Testament it is related how these prophecies were fulfilled, and how the Saviour commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth, to make all nations disciples, and to await His promised return, to judge both the quick and the dead, to restore the earth itself to perfection, and to reign for ever and ever. The Acts and the Epistles tell us how this work of evangelization was begun by the Apostles and the other disciples. Finally, the Book of Revelation prophetically narrates the conflict of the Christian Church against Satan and wicked men, and the ultimate triumph of God's eternal kingdom. Thus the Old and the New Testaments taken together form one consecutive system of instruction and of the gradual revelation of the accomplishment of God's gracious purpose and the final victory of good. The Bible forms a marvellous structure, the Taurat being the foundation and the other books the completion of the glorious edifice. The whole of the perfected building shows forth the wisdom, the justice, and the unfathomable love of God

Most Merciful, the Almighty Creator of all things. In the Taur&t God's gracious Purpose concerning men is so stated as to make it possible for them, through knowledge of the One True God, to have faith in Him, to serve Him acceptably, and thus to satisfy the yearnings of their spirits and to attain to eternal bliss. In the books of the Prophets and in the Zabdr this teaching gradually reaches higher levels. In these books God shows us how from the first He was training the children of Israel, in spite of their many sins and shortcomings, to be the teachers of the world in religious matters. He thus gradually through the Prophets made it clear that the outward rites and ceremonies, in most cases originally taken from the heathen, but improved and sanctioned in the Taur&t for a time for the use of Israel, were not of any value in themselves or as an end, though they were useful as means to the attainment of an end. This end seems to have been twofold : (i) to separate the Israelites from all other nations until the Promised Deliverer should come, and (2) to teach them that the ceremonial ordinances of even a Divinely given law (i*^) could not satisfy man's spirit nor please God, but that these were the shadows and symbols of true worship, since those who worship God acceptably must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Thus Samuel says: " Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams " (1 Sam. xv. 22). In the Book cf the Prophet Micah we are told that King Balak asked this question: " Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God ? shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? " The answer that the Prophet then gave him showed how useless all sacrifices and all other rites were without the devotion of heart and life to the service of the living God. " He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ?" (Mic. vi. 6-8). In full accordance with this teaching of the Old Testament prophets are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: " The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth : for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth " (John iv. 23, 24).

When this lofty and spiritual teaching had thus been fully revealed, and when Atonement had been made for the sins of the whole world (1 John ii. 2), then chosen and trained witnesses, the Apostles (u^]jJi) and other disciples of Christ, were sent forth to proclaim this good news everywhere, and to invite all men to accept the free gift of God, which is eternal life in Jesus Christ (Rom. vi. 23), enabling them thus to rise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness, and to endeavour to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Isa. xi. 9).

The doctrine that in time to come the adoration enjoined in the Taur&t, and offered by means of animal sacrifices, incense, and other outward rites and ceremonies, would be replaced by the spiritual worship of which these things were the types, and without which they were useless, and might easily become harmful (as is the husk or shell when the seed or nut is growing into a plant) was not a new one. This had been clearly taught in several passages of the Old Testament, for instance in Jeremiah xxxi. 31-33 :

" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; 1 will put my Law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

It is from this passage that the name of the New Covenant (Testament) is given to the second volume of the Bible.

The Lord Jesus Christ's words in John iv. 21-24, teach the same lesson, that the temporary parts of the Law (¿«j^), and those parts which dealt with Jewish rites and ceremonies, were to be done away with in the fuller spirituality of the New Covenant which He was about to make with all who believed in Him, to whatever nation they might belong. Therefore He says to the woman of Samaria : " The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father . . . But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." That not only the faithful Jews (Luke ii. 29- 32) but the most thoughtful of even the Samaritans understood that the Promised Messiah would introduce this New Covenant is clear from the Samaritan woman's reply to these words of Christ (John iv. 25).

The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes the passage of the Prophet Jeremiah which we have given above, and points out that the mention of the future New Covenant implies that even in Jeremiah's time it was recognized that the Mosaic Covenant was old, and that it was therefore destined to give place gradually to the New Covenant (Heb. viii. 13), which would not annul (Rom. iii. 31) but fulfil the types and spiritual teaching of the Taurit (Matt. v. 17, 18).

Truth is in its very nature eternal and everlasting, and incapable of change or abrogation. The eternal truths of the Old Covenant must always remain true. The New Covenant, instead of abolishing them, taught them more clearly, and presented them in a form suited for all men in all ages. The Old Covenant was made with Israel alone, and was to be binding until its fulfilment in the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of His Kingdom. Then, as Jeremiah foretold, the New Covenant was to be made with all true believers in Christ, with the spiritual Israel, the Israel of God, whether by birth Jews or Gentiles. It would thus be world-wide, as distinguished from the Mosaic Covenant. For the latter, as we have seen, was limited in its temporary parts, its rites and ordinances, to the one special nation which was being trained by means of it to become the disciples of the Promised Messiah and, through His grace, the religious teachers of the whole world. The husk in due time fell off, the seed grew and developed into a plant, into a tree. It could no longer be confined within the narrow bounds of the husk. But the seed was not destroyed and replaced by a new plant. It was developed into a tree, which is a very different thing.

Hence it is not correct to say that the Old Testament was abrogated by the New, except perhaps with respect to the local and temporary parts- of its rites and ceremonies, which were enjoined on the Jews only, and on them merely for a time. The husk was let fall off the growing plant, but the latter greW.and flourished, and still bears fruit to God's glory. Let it be again noted that to say this is quite different from saying that the Taurat was abrogated by the Gospel, unless it can be said that the blade of wheat destroys the seed from which it sprang. It does not destroy it; otherwise there would be no young shoot to spring up. The latter is the proof of the survival of the'seed in a more vigorous form. It is not the destruction but the development of the germ from which it came forth. Only the husk is left behind, because the duty of the husk is done when the young shoot appears above the earth, and begins to drink in the sunlight that streams down upon it from heaven.

Let it not be overlooked that the precepts of the Taur&t are of two different kinds, (i) the Ceremonial, and (2) the Moral. The former were binding on the Jewish nation alone, and for the most part did not become so until the Law (1*^) was given^1 at Sinai. They were not generally binding on Abraham : only the ordinance of circumcision (with possibly a few others) was enjoined on him. This fact is admitted by all. It is of great importance, because it shows that such ordinances were not always matters of obligation even for Abraham's descendants, still less were they binding upon other men. In the Taurat we learn that they were given hundreds of years after Abraham's time. They seem to have been appointed mainly, as has already been said, for two reasons : (1) To make a clear distinction between the Children of Israel and all other nations until the establishment of the Messiah's kingdom : thus keeping them free from the temptation to fall into the idolatry practised by the rest of the world. (2) To make them learn by experience that even Divinely sanctioned rites and ceremonies could not satisfy man's spiritual needs, though some spiritual meaning underlay them, and must be sought. This search was a preparation for the fuller spiritual worship of which the Prophets taught so much (compare Ps. li. 16, 17), and which was fully established by the Lord Jesus Christ. The ceremonial precepts of the Jewish Law were never imposed by God upon Gentiles. Even upon Jews they ceased to be binding when Christ's Kingdom had been fully established by His Resurrection from the dead.

But the Moral precepts, on the other hand, are of eternal (^ajI } Jj\) obligation upon all men everywhere. They were included in the Sharfat (Law) given on

1 See Sflrah iii. 22 and 87, and Baizawi's commentary on these verse?.

Mount Sinai, but were binding on all men from the time of the creation of Adam, and will never cease to be binding. It was never right and in accordance with God's Law to commit adultery, to steal, to murder, to be an idolater, to worship any but the One True God. This Moral Law, being in accord with God's Most Holy Nature (cyli), is therefore eternal and everlasting, and can never be abrogated. Hence it is clear that the fancy that the. Injil has abrogated the Taurit is wrong, and is due to want of knowledge of the latter. The Injil has not abrogated theTaur&t. On thecontrary, it forms the complement of the Taur&t and completes its teaching, Hence it is that in the New Testament there are so many verses from the Old Testament quoted and explained. The Injil thus most truly confirms the Taurat, as indeed the Qur'&n asserts : "And We caused Jesus the Son of Mary to follow upon their footsteps, confirming what was before Him of the Taurat, and We gave Him the Injil" (Sftrah v, A1 Ma idah, v. 50).

We must repeat that those Old Testament precepts which are not binding upon Christians are merely those which are ceremonial, and were as ceremonies imposed only on the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Even the latter are not annulled by the Gospel: they are fulfilled. For instance, in the Taur&t God sanctioned and regulated the very ancient custom of animal sacrifice, which from very early days had been common to all nations. The Taurit commanded that different animals should be offered on different occasions and for different purposes. One of these purposes was to make atonement for sin. Yet it is clear that the sacrifice of animals can never take away human sin. Hence the Prophet David said : " Thou delightest not in sacrifice ; else would I give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering" (Ps. li. 16). In complete accordance with this is what we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews : " The Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, they can never with the same sacrifices

e

year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins ? But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when He [Christ] cometh into the world, He saith,

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,

But a body didst Thou prepare for Me;

In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst

no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of Me) To do Thy will, O God.

Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the Law), then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of tfre body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. x. i-io). The Prophet Isaiah showed beforehand the spiritual meaning of such animal sacrifices by the wonderful prophecy of the Lamb of God (Isa. Hi. 13-liii, fin?), who, in God's " eternal purpose ", had been " slain from the foundation of the world " (Rev. xiii. 8). As this one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world has been once offered, animal sacrifices, which were merely types and shadows of it, are no longer needed. Hence Christians offer none. Nor do the Jews, since their Law forbids them to offer sacrifices except in Jerusalem, where the Temple stood ; and as the Mosque of Dmar now occupies its place, Muslims themselves prevent the Jews from there offering sacrifices. Instead, however, of slaying animals in sacrifice, Christians are bound to offer themselves, body, soul and spirit, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto the Living God, thus fulfilling the meaning which underlay the Whole Burnt Offerings of the Mosaic Law (compare Rom. xii. 1, 2 ; r Pet. ii. 15).

Again, in the Taurit ablutions of the body are enjoined. For this doubtless there were two reasons. In the first place, God wishes us to keep our bodies clean and healthy, since He has made them. Filth of body generally leads to defilement'of spirit. In the second place, it was intended that men should learn by experience that by washing the body the spirit is not purified from past sins, nor the mind from evil thoughts and desires. Hence, to satisfy our spirits' need for holiness, without which no man can. see the Lord, it became evident that Jewish ablutions were ineffective ; that they were merely types and shadows of a true and spiritual purification, which can be obtained only through the blood of the Lamb of God, which through faith in Him cleanses from all sin. Therefore the true Christian should obey the direction of the Apostle who says, "Let us cleanse purselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. vii. 1). Both bodily and spiritual purification are necessary, but the former will not produce the latter.

Again, in the Taurat it was commanded that only in one place should sacrifices be offered to God (Deut. xii. 13, 14), the place which God promised to choose " to put His Name there ", that it might be considered in a. typical sense to be His habitation (Deut. xii. 5). This place was at first Shiloh (Josh, xviii. 1), and afterwards Jerusalem. Yet King Solomon, who built the Temple, declared that it was not really God's dwelling, but only a sign of God's presence among His people, for He said: " Will God in very deed dwell on the earth ? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee ; how much less this house that I have builded! " (1 Kings viii. 27). Isaiah taught the same doctrine, for in his book we read : " Thus saith

e 2

the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy : I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones" (Isa. lvii. 15). Our Lord Jesus Christ's teaching was, as we have seen, that the accept- ableness of worship depends not on the place, but on the spirit of the worshipper (John iv. 21-24). We have also seen that, after Christ had offered at Jerusalem the one perfect sacrifice of Himself, there was no longer any room for such sacrifices as had previously been offered. Hence there was no longer any one special spot on earth appointed to offer them at. The New Covenant has admitted believers in Christ, of whatever nation they may be, to participation in all its blessings and privileges. It is necessary for each true Christian to offer himself to God, not in one special place, but in one special Person, that is to say, in Christ, to be a living sacrifice unto God. Thus the old command regarding sacrifice has been fulfilled with a new and higher meaning. And this took place at the moment when obedience to it, in its literal sense, was no longer requisite, beneficial, or indeed possible.

In the Taurit three special festivals were appointed to be observed by the Jews, and it was commanded that their males should in this way, thrice every year, present themselves before the Lord in the place which He should choose to set His Name there (Exod. xxiii. 14, 17 ; Deut. xvi. 16). But when the Jews in process of time came to fancy that the more outward observance of these festivals, and the performance of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, quite apart from inward reverence and holiness, was acceptable to God Most High, and that such things were means of storing up merit, then His Prophets were commissioned to declare them to be thus rendered things abominable in His sight (Isa. i. 14-17 ; Amos v. 21). Spiritual approach to God was the one thing really needful. That is attained in the New Covenant through a living faith

THE MizANU'L HAQQ

in Christ's Atonement (Col. i. 20-22 sqq.; Heb. x. 19-22).

Circumcision was appointed in the TaurAt as a sign of the covenant between God on the one side and Abraham and his descendants on the other. But it implied that those who received this seal of circumcision bound themselves thereby to believe the promise that One descended from Abraham through his son Isaac should be the cause of the shedding of God's blessing on all nations (Gen. xvii. 10-14; xviii. 18; xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4). Through Moses the same command was again given to Israel (Lev. xii. 3), though its object could not have been to distinguish the Israelites from the heathen, for many of the latter were also circumcised. It was doubtless intended to teach God's people the need of cutting off from their hearts all sensual desires. Hence in the Taur&t itself the command is given, "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart" (Deut. x. 16). This is explained in Deut. xxx. 6, where the Israelites are told that love to God will alone drive out sensual desires and purify their hearts. The teaching of the New Testament agrees with this (Rom. ii. 25, 28, 29). When God's New Covenant was made through Christ with believers of all nations, a new sign of the covenant was appointed, Baptism (Matt, xxviii. 19). This is suitable for all, men and women, old and young; and it taught the same lesson of purity. A change of sign was needful because of the New Covenant. It was necessary also to distinguish Christians both from Jews and from those heathens who practised circumcision. But the need of purity of heart and life was insisted on more strongly than ever (Col. iii. 5-17).

69

There are many other rites and ceremonies of the Jewish Law which in the same manner were intended to teach spiritual lessons. When these lessons had been learnt, there was no longer need for the outward observance of these rites. The outward observances might in fact be injurious, because those Jews

who rejected Christ observed them, and thought thereby to win salvation. But it will be evident to all men of understanding that in such matters the Injil did not abrogate the Taur&t, but explained the spiritual meaning of the Ceremonial Law, and insisted on the necessity of rendering this spiritual service to God. It was in this sense that Christ Himself said : " Think not that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets : I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished " (Matt. v. 17, 18). What we have now said may suffice to show in what way Christianity deals with the Jewish Ceremonial Law.

With regard to the Moral Law, on the other hand, as we have already said, it is in the nature of the case impossible that it should ever be abrogated. The New Covenant, so far from abrogating the Moral Law as taught in the Old Testament, amplified and emphasized its meaning and requirements. For example, murder was forbidden in the TaurAt (Exod. xx. 13; Deut. v. 17): but Christ declared that this command was transgressed not only by killing a human being, but by permitting angry feelings in the heart, which if unchecked would lead to the desire to kill (Matt. v. 21, 22). In the Taur&t God had forbidden adultery (Exod. xx. 14; Deut. v. 18): but Christ declared that a lustful glance and thought were a breach of this law in God's sight (Matt. v. 27, 28). He also said that, though Moses had permitted divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts, yet those who practised divorce for any cause but the one which rendered it necessary were guilty of adultery, and of causing others to commit it (Matt. v. 31, 32). The Taurat forbade men to forswear themselves, but bade them, if they swore, to take an oath in God's name, and keep it (Exod. xx. 7; Lev. xix. 12 ; Deut. vi. 13). In our Lord's time the Israelites were accustomed to use oaths lightly in ordinary conversation. Christ told them that the need for taking oaths at all arose from evil, from men's common habit of speaking falsely. He bade them abstain altogether from this light taking of oaths when not necessary, and always to speak the truth without an oath (Matt. v. 33-37). The Taur&t commands to love one's neighbour as oneself (Lev. xix. 18). The Jews applied this rule to those who were of their own nation, and in ordinary speech, when quoting this injunction, used to add the words. " and hate thine enemy." Christ commands love even to our enemies (Matt. v. 43-48). The best and most Godfearing men in Moses' time probably found it a hard task to restrain their wrath, and abstain from murder when offended. It was also difficult to obey the other commandments which prohibited theft, adultery, and covetousness. But perhaps in Christ's time the influence of God's Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Prophets had made these things possible for all but the very worst of the Jews. Hence the time had come for an advance in the teaching of the Moral Law, and to show how much more exacting were its demands than even the best of the Israelites realized. Through the life and example of Christ, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, even the very humblest of His true followers were enabled to reach a higher level of obedi ence to the Moral Law than the very best of men had done before. The Law of Moses prohibited evil actions, that of Christ forbids not only evil actions, but even evil thoughts. The Law of Moses was negative, that is to say, prohibitory in its teaching ; the Law of Christ is positive, not merely saying,." Thou shalt not do evil," but, " Thou shalt do good." Under the Mosaic Law men were condemned for having done evil : under Christ's law men are condemned for not having done good. Hence in one of His Parables Christ condemns the priest and the Levite who did not help the man wounded by the robbers (Luke x. 30-37), and in another the servant who had hid in a napkin the pound which he should have used for his master's benefit (Luke xix. 20-24). The Law of Moses forbade the Israelites to mingle with the heathen and, through imitating the:ir bad example, fall into idolatry and other sins. The Law of Christ does not merely forbid Christians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and to imitate them, it commands Christians to make all nations disciples, and to teach them the knowledge of the True God.

In one respect there is a necessary difference between the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament taught men their sinful state in God's sight, and bade them look forward to the coming of a Saviour, who would be born of a Virgin, at Bethlehem, and who was to make His own life an offering for the sins of His people. The New Testament, on the other hand, tells men of the fulfilment of this promise, and bids them believe on Him who has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the whole world. But this difference again is but the completion of the work begun in the earlier revelation.

To some people it may seem that, owing to the gradual but steady growth of learning and civilization, the religion which was suitable in Moses' time was out of date and antiquated in that of Christ; and in the same way that the religion taught by Christ had, in Muhammad's day, some six centuries later, grown old, and that it therefore required to be supplanted by I slim. The answer to this is threefold : (1) Religious rites and ceremonies may become antiquated, and, though at first helpful, may at last, under changed circumstances and through loss of all thought of their spiritual significance, grow useless and even harmful. But the principles of True Religion are unchangeable, like the Moral Law. If they were once true, they must be true in every age. The principles of the Mosaic Law were true in Adam's time, in Abraham's, in Christ's : they are true now, and will be until the Resurrection day, and even beyond it. Therefore the essence of true Religion can never change or become out of date and effete. (2) If the progress of learning and civilization requires that there should be a corresponding progress in religious practices and ideas, and if we grant (which we do not) that Muhammad's age and country were far superior to what Palestine had been in Christ's time in learning and enlightenment, then it is manifest that Islam, in order to suit a more advanced age and to be fit to be God's final Revelation, must be at the very least as far superior to Christianity in morality, in spirituality, and in freedom from a multitude of purely local rites, ceremonies, and observances, as Christianity itself is in these respects superior to Judaism. Whether this is so or not let those judge who are well acquainted with the teaching of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'dn. (3) Human nature is the same in all ages in its needs, its longings, and its corruptions. In every age alike, therefore, it requires to be purified by the influence of God's Holy Spirit. In every age man is prone to sin, and requires to be drawn to God. This can be done only though the revelation of God's love. The words of the Apostle, " We love Him because He first loved us," are therefore the expression of the highest conceivable degree of success in drawing man to God and reconciling him to his Creator. The human mind cannot imagine any appeal in religion to any higher or more unselfish part of human nature than that one which is thus affected and made active in God's service by faith in Christ.

Once more: the baseless fancy that the Bible has been abrogated is confuted by the clear and definite statements of God's prophets and apostles, and by those of Christ Himself contained therein. Regarding the Old Testament, Isaiah, for example, says : " The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand for ever " (Isa. xl. 8). The Lord Jesus Christ teaches the same truth, that the Old Testament shall not be abrogated, but that even the very slightest essential matter in it shall remain in

THE MizANU'L HAQQ pt. i

force at least as long as the world lasts (Matt. v. 18). Regarding His own words (^uf) He says the same thing: " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away" (Matt. xxiv. 35 ; Mark xiii. 31; Luke xxi. 33).

It has been argued that Christ is here asserting merely that His words should remain until after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (a.d. 70). But the student of the New Testament will at once perceive that, according to the account given in each of these three Gospels, He has, just before uttering these words, been referring to His own Return, and the Resurrection Day and the Day of Judgement (Matt. xxiv. 30, 31 ; Mark xiii. 26, 27 ; Luke xxi. 27, 28). It is in connexion with these terrible things that He asserts that, even after them, His words shall^1 continue. This explanation is confirmed by what Christ says in St. John's Gospel: " He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My sayings, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John xii. 48). It is impossible to misunderstand this language. We shall all be finally judged by His words : hence His teaching in the Injll is not abrogated, and cannot be abrogated. Nay more, we are told that, should anyone, even an angel from heaven", endeavour to supersede the Gospel of Christ by another message which professed to come from God, he should be accursed (Gal. i. 8, 9). This is the reason why true and enlightened Christians were not led away by M&nl when he claimed to be the Paraclete, and why they have never expected any fresh Revelation from heaven after that contained in the New Testament.

Let it be noticed that these sayings of Christ about the permanence of His message are quite distinct from the question of the preservation of every actual oral utterance (kAJ) of His, or of every such word (¿jj) written in the Old Testament or in the New. No man of

1 This accords with the statement in the Qur'an that God's words cannot be changed (Sfirahs vi. 34, 115 ; x. 65; xviii. 26).

learning will confound ¿Ull [cles mots'] with !es

parolesJ. There are various readings in the Old and in the New Testaments, as there are indeed in the Qur'dn and in all ancient books. But all these together do not affect the meaning of a single doctrine, a single moral precept, of either Testament.

It has been argued that Christ's words would imply that the ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law must never be abrogated : but this objection has been answered above. The ceremonial precepts of the Taurit have not been abrogated : they have been fulfilled, as Christ Himself taught (Matt. v. 17). As an instance of this we may notice what He says about Fasting, a practice not forbidden by any Prophet, though nowhere expressly commanded, and much esteemed among the Jews (Matt. vi. 16-18).

The assertion has been made that Christ's own command in Matt. x. 5, and His statement in Matt. xv. 24, are both abrogated by Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. But temporary commands are not correctly said to be abrogated when they are fully obeyed : and the statement referred to is corroborated by the fact that, except on the occasion mentioned in Matt. xv. 24, He did not (apparently) go beyond the limits of Palestine during His life on earth.

Turning now to the facts mentioned in the Bible, we see that they also are incapable of being abrogated. For it is evident to all men of understanding that an asserted fact is either true or false. We may require proof to establish its reality, but what is real cannot be made unreal, and what has occurred cannot be so erased from the pages of the world's history as never to have happened. Regarding this point it is needless to say more.

We conclude therefore that it has been clearly proved that the essential teachings of the Old Testament and the New are in their very nature incapable of being changed or annulled, because God's Will and Character are free from all change and alteration. Hence the

Way of Salvation in all ages is the same, and in the last day all men will be judged according to the teachings of Christ, whose day Abraham rejoiced 1 to see with the eye of faith, and through belief in whom alone was it possible even for Abraham and all the prophets themselves to obtain salvation.

1 John viii. 56.

CHAPTER III

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH ARE NOW IN CIRCULATION ARE THOSE WHICH EXISTED IN THE HANDS OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN MUHAMMAD'S TIME, AND TO WHICH THE QUR'AN BEARS WITNESS

In this and the next chapter our object is to consider the question whether the books of the Old Testament, now in circulation among both Jews and Christians, and those of the New Testament, now in the hands of Christians, are those which existed in Muhammad's time, and, if so, whether they have in any degree become corrupted (aj^x*) or changed. Before we examine the evidence, let us for the moment suppose that the assertion so common among ignorant people in Muslim lands is correct, and (i) that the existent Scriptures are not those current in Muhammad's day, or (2) are at least so corrupted as to be unreliable. If so, then the condition of all men is most miserable. For it is clear to our reason that God's Word (¡¡A is as unchangeable as His Will. That Word was spoken by the Prophets, as even the Qur'fin teaches, and Muslims are commanded to express their belief in it (Surahs ii. 130; lit. 78). If then this Word of God has utterly vanished from among men, or has been so corrupted as to be no longer trustworthy, how miserable must all the race of men be, and how completely has the Qur'dn failed to be a^1 (Protector) to it! What then is

1 Sflrah v. (A1 Maidah), ver. 52, says: 'And We have sent down unto thee the Book in truth, confirming what was before it of the Book, and a Protector over it' (jJi I: »14 »). On these latter two words Baizawt's comment is: ' ^ JL ^Js- L-^

p <4 O ^ W^ M W -O

ii-ija. j WJlC ¿2)* ¡J* iJlf ) ujLiil J ¡s-aJl> w j

the nature of the Qur an, and how can Muslims trust even it, if it has failed to discharge the task committed unto it by God, as they believe ?

But, thank God, the Word of God has neither perished nor been corrupted. God has been its Preserver. Even the Qur'in assists the Muslim truth- seeker to recognize that the Bible is the Word of God.

Yet, strangely enough, in this matter we Christians have often to uphold the correctness of the statements which the Qur'in makes about the Bible, and in this way to defend the Qur'&n from some of the Muslims themselves, who, not having considered that any attack on the Bible is an attack on the Qur'tin which " confirms" and " protects it", rashly do injury to their own honoured Book.

For instance, Shaikh H&jl Rahmatu'llah of Dehli, in his Jzhdru'l Haqq (Jsjfjl^y), published in a. h. 1284, tells us that certain of the 'Ulam&' at Dehli in a.h. 1270 put forth a fatwd\ in which they said: " This^1 collection (of books), which is now known as the New Testament, is not received among us; and this is not the Injll which is mentioned in the Qur'&n, but, on the contrary, in our opinion, the latter denotes the Word which was sent down upon Jesus." Rahmatu'll&h himself through prejudice has fallen into the same error, for he says : " The^2 original Taur&t and so also the original Injll

^ '¿J J&U&Tjl ¿rj* J JiiUJt J Uu^iff y. The Jaiaian explain *:.. 4by \x»V¿>. 'Abbasi says l^tS^^T^ wAc In

the interlinear Persian and Urdfl version in the Qur'an printed in India, at the HSshimi Press, a.h. 1299, it is rendered yl^jj. In the Qur'&n printed at Tehr&n in a.h. 1312, it is c^j, The word is really Aramaic in form.

y«»jj ujllc jajisjl j^ju (jw ^ 1

rys3f ^ ujjuc j» jj utriiTLS. [f-, 4» cjjjT j^ryt

.(pp. 144, T! 5) JJ« Jjj* IijJt

8 Izharu'l Haqq, p. 142.

were both lost before the mission of Muhammad, and those which are now extant are in the position of two books of romances collected from true and false anecdotes: and we do not say that they were extant in their genuineness up to the dispensation of the Prophet, and that then falsification (uXj^Jl) befel them both. By no means." Of course this author, when he speaks of the "original Taurdt" and the "original Injil", cannot mean the original manuscripts, for those of the Qur'in have likewise perished. Doubtless he means the true and actual contents of those MSS. Hence his statement is wrong, as not only Christians, but almost every learned Muslim in India in our own day will admit. In ancient times there was some excuse for ignorance and error on this subject, but there is none now.

Shaikh Rahmatu'll&h tries to make the ignorant believe that the Taur&t entirely perished when the Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 b.c. In order to prove this he quotes a forged book entitled by some the Second Book of Esdras, and by others the Fourth Book of Esdras, and wishes Muslims to believe that Esdras, i. e. Ezra \jky-), compiled[1] a volume, and pretended that it was the true and genuine Taur&t of Moses. But when we turn to the worthless book to which the Shaikh refers uj, we do not find anything to support the Shaikh's statement. On the contrary, that book informs us (Chapter XIV, 21, 22) that Ezra caused his scribes to write " all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in Thy Law ". That is to say, according to this account, Ezra was a H&fiz of the Taur&t, and when he dictated the Taur&t to the scribes he was rot forging a false revelation. Baiz&wl in his commentary on Sflrah ix. (At Taubah), ver. 30, relates a tale which, though totally unreliable, supports this explanation and opposes that of Shaikh Rahmatu'll£h. Baiz&wi says that the Jews, " because after Nebuchadnezzar's onslaught no one was

8o THE MizANU'L HAQQ

left among them who knew the Taurat by heart, and he" ('Uzair, i.e. Ezra), "when God brought him to life after 100 years, dictated (Jul) to them the Taurit from memory, accordingly marvelled at that." Under the circumstances it was not surprising that they should marvel, but it is surprising that anyone should believe such a story. Even Second (or Fourth) Esdras tells us nothing so absurd. Yet both it and Baizawi agree that Ezra was a Hifiz of the Taurit, not a compiler of a forged Taur&t. If the tale told in Second Esdras were true, it would show that, just as the Qur'in would not perish if every copy of it were burnt, because there are men who know it by heart, and who could and would dictate it to others, so the Taurit did not perish, because Ezra knew it by heart and dictated it to his scribes. This does not establish the destruction of the Taurit, as Shaikh Rahmatu'llih thinks it does.

It may be well to mention, however, that no scholar accepts the Second (or Fourth) Book of Esdras as the work of Ezra. A study even of its contents proves that the earlier part of it was written between 81 and 96 a.d., and the later part as late as 263 a.d., whereas Ezra lived in the fifth century before Christ. (Such passages as 2 Esdras ii. 47 ; vii. 28, 29, &c., show that the book was written after Christ's time, and not before it.) The book was never accepted by the Jews. The latter join with all scholars in rejecting the fable which is told in this book, though in the third century of the Christian era some people who knew no Hebrew were foolish enough to let themselves be deceived by it.

We must now show that the Taurit and other ancient Sacred Books of the Jews did not perish in Nebuchadnezzar's time. This will be clear, if we prove that they still existed in Ezra's day, much more than a hundred years after the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. The proof is not difficult, for in the genuine Book of Ezra, which is in the Canon of.both Jews and Christians, we are told that Ezra " was a ready scribe in the Taurit of Moses " (Ezra vii. 6 ;

compare Nehemiah viii), and that the Law of God (the Taurat) was in Ezra's hand when he went up to Jerusalem from Babylon (Ezra vii. 14). Therefore it is clear that the Book of the Taurit had not been destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's time. This Biblical testimony is sufficient; but it does not stand alone. __ In a Hebrew work entitled the Pirq£y Abh6th said to have been composed in the second century of the Christian era, it is said : " Moses^1 received the Taurat from Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders,2 and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Synagogue." The Great Synagogue is said to have been a body of learned men established by Ezra, and their main duty is said to have been to preserve the Taurdt and to teach it. The Talmud says of them that, after the Babylonian Captivity, " the men of the Great Synagogue restored the Magnificence (i. e. the Taurat) to its ancient state." In accordance with this the Pirqey Abhoth says^3 that " They used to utter three sayings : ' Be ye careful in judgement; and Raise up many disciples; and Make a hedge for the Taurat.'" The last saying signifies, " Take means to preserve the Taurat from all possible injury or corruption." This has been done most carefully. No nation has ever taken such care of its religious books as the Jews have for ages past taken of theirs. They have kept a record even of the number of words and letters in the Sacred Text. One other passage from the Pirqey Abhdth we quote, to show what importance the Jews attached to the Taurat. In it we read : " Simon^4 the Just was one of the survivors of the Great Synagogue. He used to say: ' The world exists through (stands on) three things,—the Taur&t, and Worship, and kind deeds.' " The Jews have handed the Old Testament in the original Hebrew and Aramaic

1. Pirqey Abhoth, i. 1.

2. Those mentioned in Joshua xxiv. 31.

3. Pirqey Abhoth, i. r. 4 Pirqey Abhoth, i. 2.

f

down from generation to generation with the greatest care and reverence.

One proof of this is that there is a difference of style in different parts of the Old Testament, thus showing that it is not the composition of one man, or indeed of one age. Then, again, there exist apparent though not real contradictions between different accounts of the same incident and other matters of no real spiritual importance. This proves that the Jews have made no attempt to change the. text in order to get rid of apparent contradictions. The force of this argument will be understood from an illustration drawn from the Qur'in. In Sflrah iii. (AlTmran), ver. 48, we are told that God said, " O Jesus, verily it is I that cause Thee to die and that take Thee up unto Myself": and in Stirah iv. (An Nisi), ver. 157, speaking of Jesus, we are told : " And there is none of the People of the Book but shall assuredly believe on Him before His death." Some doubt whether the latter pronoun refers to Christ, but there is no doubt as to the mention of His death in Silrah xix. (Maryam), ver. 34, where He is represented as saying : " And peace be upon Me the day I was born and the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised alive." Yet in Silrah iv, ver. 156, it is denied that the Jews slew Him : " And they slew Him not, and they crucified Him not." At first sight the reader would imagine that there was a contradiction here, some places asserting Christ's death, another denying it. Yet the very fact of this apparent contradiction being found in the Qur'in is a proof that the Muslims have not corrupted the text, in spite of the reading ^¿jl Jlj ("before their death "), which Baizawi^1

records, for jjp jli (" before His death"). So it is also with apparent contradictions in the Bible. Their very existence is a strong proof that no attempt to reconcile them by altering the text has been made.

Certain Muslim writers have drawn up long lists

1 Vol. i, p. 2^1.

of passages in which they venture to assert that absolutely vital contradictions are found in the Old Testament. o The contradictions are only apparent, as in the instance we have quoted from the Qur'ân. In many cases the apparently discordant passages cafr be reconciled with one another by the careful student. In others the difficulty in doing this manifestly arises from our not knowing all the circumstances of the case. But the very existence of such discrepancies and apparent contradictions proves most conclusively that the reverence the Jews felt for their Sacred Books was such that they made no attempt to alter the text in order to remove stumbling-blocks out of the way of thoughtless and prejudiced opponents, who in many cases desire to display their own fancied cleverness, not to find the Truth of God. It is always possible, even at mid-day, for a man to shut his eyes to the light which God gives : but he that chooses to walk in darkness cannot fail to go astray.

Let us now very briefly state what proof we have that the Old Testament in the first place and the New Testament in the second, which are now in circulation, are those which existed in the hands of the " People of the Book" in Muhammad's time, and to which the Qur'ân bears such clear witness.

We have lists of the Old Testament books which formed the Jewish Canon of Holy Scripture. These lists are far earlier than Muhammad's time, and they contain all the books now found in the Hebrew Old Testament.

Josephus,1 the Jewish historian, writing about 90 a.d., says : " Among us there are not myriads of discrepant and self-contradictory books, but only twenty-two books, containing the history of all time, and rightly believed Divine. And five% of these are those of Moses ; and they contain both the laws and the connected history of the human race until his death. This period falls little short of 3,000 years. From Moses'

1 Against Apion, Bk. I, chap. viii. s Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

f 2

84 the MizANU'L haqq pt. i

death up to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of the Per- sians after Xerxes, the Prophets after Moses wrote in thirteen^1 books the things which occurred in their own times. The four^2 remaining books comprise hymns to God and directions for men's conduct." The Council of Jamnia, 90 a.d., gives the same Canon. Somewhat later the Council of Laodicea in 363 a.d. mentions the same number of books, twenty-two, as constituting the Old Testament. For convenience sake in more recent times some of these books have been subdivided, but in most cases we can tell exactly when this was done. For instance, in the St. Petersburg Codex, written in 916 a.d., in Hebrew, all the twelye Minor^3 Prophets are still included in one book, the separate Prophets forming as it were chapters in the volume. The total number of verses in all the twelve is reckoned up, and given in one sum. The division of " Samuel" into two books, " Kings " into two books, " Chronicles" into two books, Ezra and Nehemiah into separate books, was first made in the edition of the Hebrew Old Testament printed at Venice in 1516 and 1517 a.d.

Josephus informs 4 us that other books, besides the twenty-two (books " which have not been accounted equally worthy of credit"), had been translated into Greek. So it is that, besides those which the Jews regarded as canonical, and which they still preserve in Hebrew, the Septuagint Greek Version contains others which, though written considerably before Christ's birth, have never been received into the Jewish Canon. These, therefore, cannot be considered part of the Old Testament. As far as can be ascertained, the Taur&t was translated from Hebrew into Greek in

1 Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Twelve Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel.

- Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs.

- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. xii, cap. 2 : Against Apion, ii. 4.

Egypt between 285 and 247 b.c., at the desire of the king, Ptolemy II, surnamed Philadelphus. Some deem a later date (250-200 b.c.) more probable : but that is a matter of little importance. The rest of the Old Testament books were translated later, but all long before Christ's time. This Septuagint Version (" Version of the Seventy", so called from the traditional number of the translators employed in making it) is the earliest translation of the Old Testament known to us.

We proceed to mention other versions of ,the Old Testament, in order to show how certain we are that the Old Testament we now have is the same that existed in Muhammad's time and long before. If it had not existed, even the most ignorant of men will readily understand that it could not have been translated.

A Greek version by Aquila was made in 130 a. d. Another by a Samaritan called Symmachus was finished about 218 a.d. The Itala or Old Latin Version belongs to the second century of the Christian era. It was made from the Septuagint. Jerome's translation of the Old Testament, styled the Vulgate, was finished in 405 a.d., and was directly from the Hebrew.

Translations into Syriac began very early. Jacob of Edessa says that one was made about Christ's time for Abgar, King of Edessa. The PeshittcL j) Syriac version of the Old Testament is first referred to, it is thought, by Melito of Sardis in the second century. Others ascribe it to the third century. The Philoxenian Syriac Version was made by a translator named Poly- carp about 508 a.d. It was revised by Thomas of Heraclea (Jj,») in 616 a.d. All the other Syriac versions were therefore made before Muhammad's time, but this one during his lifetime.

When the disciples of Muhammad fled from Mecca before the Hijrah, and took refuge in Abyssinia, they found the Christians there reading the yEthiopic Old Testament as well as the New. This version was then so old as to be difficult for the Abyssinians themselves to understand, for it had been made about the fourth century, from the Septuagint.

When 'Umar conquered Egypt, he found the people mostly Christians. They had translated the Old Testament from the Septuagint into three at least of the dialects of their own tongue, the Coptic. These are known as the Buhairic (ujlkX), the Sa'idic (^^j), and the Bushmtiric (¡jjjiXS) versions. They were probably

made in the third or fourth century, though some think earlier.

Parts of the Old Testament were translated from Syriac into Armenian about 411 a. d. Another version made from the Septuagint into Armenian was published in 436 a. d. About a century later, but still long before the Hijrah, the Georgian version was made from the Armenian.

If we now turn to Europe, we find that a Gothic bishop named Ulphilas, who died in 381 or 383 a.d., translated the Bible into Gothic for his own people about 360 a.d.

Most of these versions were made by Christians, except of course the Septuagint and Aquila's version. But the Jews also translated much of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Aramaic when the majority of them had ceased to speak Hebrew. Onkelos's version of the Taur&t was made between 150 and 200 a. d. Jonathan ben 'Uzzi'el translated the books of the Prophets about 322 a.d. Besides these there is the Jerusalem Targtim, also made before the Hijrah, probably in the sixth century.

It is well known that in early times the Samaritans were great enemies of the Jews. The Samaritans refused to accept as inspired any part of the Old Testament except the Taur&t of Moses. That, however, they did accept and honour. We do not know for certain when they got a copy of the Hebrew Taur&t. Some suppose it was about 606 B.C. when the seventy years' captivity of the Jews began.1 Others think 1 It ended 536 b. c.

that it was brought to Samaria by Manasseh, grandson of Eliashib the High Priest. He had married Sanbal- lat's daughter (Neh. xiii. 28), and, being banished from Jerusalem by Nehemiah, founded another^1 Temple on Mt. Gerizim about 409 b.c. We still possess copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, as it is called, written in the original Hebrew language, but in different letters from those in use among the Jews.

When we examine all these different witnesses, and inquire of them whether the Old Testament at present in use among both Jews and Christians was in existence among them in Muhammad's time, they all with one voice answer, " Yes." It is true that different readings occur, as they do in the Qur'&n and in all ancient books. It is also true, as we have seen, that the Septuagint translators permitted a few books of no authority to be circulated, in addition to those of the Hebrew Canon. But they did not reject one single book of that Canon. Taking all the versions of the Old Testament that we have mentioned together, there is not one doctrine which is in the slightest degree affected by the trifling variations in readings that exist between them. Hence on this evidence, were there no other, it is clearly proved that our present Old Testament is'that which existed in Muhammad's time, and to which the Qur'an so repeatedly bears witness.

Turning now to the New Testament, we must inquire whether the volume now current under that name is the same as that which existed in Muhammad's time. About this among all men of learning there is absolutely not the slightest doubt.

87

ch. ill

THE MizANU'L tfAQQ

Recent investigation has proved that even in Christ's lifetime some of His disciples had written down short notes of His words and works. Many of these may still be recognized as among the verses which compose St. Mark's Gospel in particular, though these notes are also in a measure incorporated into the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke. Of course the 1 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. xi, ch. viii.

narrative of His Crucifixion, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension could not be written till after His Ascension had occurred. When there were so many men still living who had seen and conversed with our Lord after His Resurrection (i Cor. xv. 6), it was not necessary to compose books to inform men of what they were day by day hearing from living witnesses (Acts i. 21, 22), who could be cross-questioned, as a book could not be. Besides this, the Risen Lord had commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel (i.e. the Good News), not to write it in the first instance. When we read St. Paul's Epistles we see what that Gospel (¿,Ll_>) was. We must remember that the earliest of these Epistles (1 and 2 Thess.) were written only about twenty-two or twenty-three years after the Ascension of Christ, and we see in these and the other Epistles of St. Paul the very same doctrines which we Christians hold to-day.

When the first generation of Christians was passing away, God's Holy Spirit directed the Gospels to be written for the benefit of posterity. St. Mark's was finished before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., and probably between 65 and 66 a.d., at Rome. Mark was not only a friend and companion of the Apostles and other early disciples, but he was always in the early Church spoken of as the interpreter of St. Peter. The Gospel according to St. Mark rests therefore, humanly speaking, in large measure on the information supplied by St. Peter himself. Of course Divine Inspiration did not alter that information; it merely directed Peter and Mark what to record and what not to record, bringing to Peter's remembrance what Christ had said to him (John xiv. 26 ; xv. 26), and guarding him from error. St. Matthew's Gospel was also written before 70 a.d.; St. Luke's Gospel probably between 60 and 70 a.d. ; St. John's between 90 and 100 a.d., when the " beloved disciple " was a very old man. We have therefore two Gospels written by two Apostles, Matthew and John, a third by the chosen friend of an Apostle and probably at his dictation, and a fourth by Luke, the friend of St. Paul. Luke tells us that he had most carefully made inquiries about every matter he records (Luke i. 3, 4) from eye-witnesses. There is no real doubt that much of what we read in the first two chapters of his Gospel came from the lips of the Virgin Mary herself.

It may be objected that all this is not Inspiration. It is not such inspiration as is imagined by some Muslims, who believe the story that the Quran was written down on the Preserved Tablet ages before the creation of the world, and sent^1 down to the lowest heaven on the Night of Power, and then dictated to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel verse by verse, as occasion required. Inspiration of that kind seems to us Christians to be most undesirable, and it is certainly incapable of proof with regard to the Qur'dn, as is shown in the book entitled " The^2 Original Sources of the Quran". All thoughtful men will perceive that, even were we to suppose that any Holy Book was composed in heaven in this way and sent down to men, it would be impossible to prove that all this had really occurred. But the Christian view of Inspiration is that God Most High, in causing a Divine Revelation to be written down for the guidance of men, used not merely the Prophets' hands, but also their brains, minds memory, intellect, spirits, so that the message was God's, the words those of the writers (compare John xvi. 13).

We must here explain away a difficulty which stands in the way of many of our Muslim brothers when seeking the truth. Some say, " The Injtl which Christians now have cannot be the Injll which was sent down unto Jesus, because there are now four separate Andjil not one Injll, and they were not composed

For various theories about the " Descent" of the Qur'an, see the Kashftfz Zuntin, vol. ii, p. 340, printed at Constantinople, a.h. 1310.

2 In Arabic called p^L^T^L^; in Persian p^L^I ^ri^i» Urdti also it bears this latter name.

till a considerable time after Jesus had ascended into heaven." Now it is not difficult to answer this argument. If there is any force in the latter part of it, it would affect the Qur'Hn as well as the Injll; for the Our an was not " collected " and put together until after Muhammad's death, as we learn from the Mish- kdiu'l Masabih[1] and from other Muslim authorities. But it should be explained that in reality there exists only one Gospel, for the word Injil, though it is now used as the name of a book, and its meaning is not often remembered by Muslims, really means " the Good News ". " Injil" is only the Arabic form of the Greek EvayyeXiov, which denotes this (¿,Ll-J|). This Good News, this Divine Message of God's love and the way of salvation through Christ, is one, though told in different ways, so that it may appeal to a larger number of people, and may be supported by the testimony not of one man only, but of four. Again we say there is only one Gospel. In the original Greeik the title of the books shows this, for they are called " The Gospel according to St. Matthew ", " the Gospel according to St. Mark", &c. Only for brevity is the shorter title "St. Matthew's Gospel", &c., employed. Each of the four Evangelists told the Good News in his own way, under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit; but the message was one and the same. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles shows that this Gospel was preached by the Christians immediately after the Ascension in land after land. But it was first of all preached by Christ Himself (Mark i. 15; xiii. 10; Luke xx. 1), and therefore must have already " been sent down unto Jesus ", for He Himself claimed that His message was from God, saying, "The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak" (Johnxii. 50; compare John viii. 28 ; xii. 49).

With regard to the books which together form the

New Testament, it is well known to all scholars that they were not received into the Canon except gradually and after the most careful inquiry, lest by chance some book which was of no authority and devoid of inspiration should be incorporated into this collection. This examination occupied some considerable time, because some of the Epistles were private letters to individuals (1 and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, 2 and 3 John), and the rest of them were in the first place addressed to individual Churches. But, from the writings of early Christians which have been preserved, we know that the four Gospels were known and recognized as authoritative between 70 and 130 a.d. A fragment of a work dating from about 170 a.d. contains part of a list of the New Testament books. It is called the Muratorian Canon, and, though torn, it mentions or implies the existence of every New Testament book, except the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the list when complete almost certainly included these also, for elsewhere they were all received in the second century, with the doubtful exception of 2 Peter, which is not often mentioned in early lists. Considering that books were then very costly, that most of the Christians were poor (1 Cor. i. 26, 27), that the whole of the New Testament books, if written in the large Greek letters then in use, and on rolls of parchment, would form not a volume, but a small library, we are surprised to find them all, or almost all. so early known in different lands. In the Laodicean Council of 363 a.d., in which (as we have seen above) the twenty-two Books of the Hebrew Old Testament are mentioned, the Canon of the New Testament includes all our present New Testament, except the Revelation of St. John. Hence we see that at that time there was still some doubt about the latter ; some Churches received it, and some had not yet decided to do so, though they afterwards admitted it. The Council of" Carthage in 397 a.d. gives & list of all our present New Testament books, adding the words, " We have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church."

Besides these catalogues drawn up by Councils, we find in the works of certain eminent Christian writers of early times lists of the books which their own study and investigation led them to accept as undoubtedly written by the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ. For instance, Origen, who died in 253 a.d., mentions all our New Testament books. Athanasius, who died in 315 a.d., does the same. Eusebius, writing about the same date, also mentions them all, though he tells us that some people still doubted whether the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, and the Revelation of John were genuine. More careful inquiry, however, as we have seen, led to the conviction on the part of the Church in general that these books too should be considered part of the New Testament Canon.

Thus during the first four centuries we have testimony from Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Alexandria, North Africa, and Italy to the existence and genuineness of every book in the New Testament.

It is therefore clear from this point of view that our New Testament, as at present circulated among Christians, was in existence in Muhammads time among the Christians who then lived in Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia and other lands with whose peoples he was brought into contact.

So far we have proved that the Old Testament and the New existed in Muhammad's time. But we have not yet shown how it is that we know that the Old and New Testament books that then bore the names of those in our present Bibles actually were the same. May it not be that those which then were called by these names have perished, and that others have been forged in their stead, the names only remaining the same ? If any Muslim will for a moment imagine the question put to him with regard to the SOrahs of the Qur'&n, "How do you know that the Surah A1 Baqarah, for example, that is printed in your present copies of the Qur'&n, is the same Stirah as the one that bore that name in 'U mar's time ?" he will perceive the absurdity of putting a similar question to us Christians regarding our Sacred Books. Yet, in order to remove all possible excuse for doubt and uncertainty, we shall reply to it.

One proof of the identity of our present books of the Bible with those which existed in Muhammad's day is: that we actually possess a number of Manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, which Manuscripts themselves were then extant. This is true with respect to the New Testament in the original Greek, and to the Old Testament in the Greek translation, as we shall soon point out.

As to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the most ancient MS. we have of any part of it is a small Hebrew papyrus discovered in Egypt only four or five years ago. It contains the Ten Commandments and the Hebrew Creed, &c. (Exod. xx. 2-17 and Deut. vi. 4-9). It was written between 220 and 250 a. d. That was a long time before the Hijrah.

The most ancient MS. of any large size, however, that we now possess is that called "Oriental No. 4445 ". It is preserved in the British Museum, and was written probably between 820 and 850 a.d. The next oldest is the " St. Petersburg Codex ", which bears on it the date 916 a.d. It is carefully preserved in St. Petersburg. But these are copied from far older MSS., to whose existence they bear testimony, mentioning two (among others) called the " Sepher Hilleli " and the " Sepher Mflgih ". Zakkut (u^ij), a Jewish chronicler who wrote about 1500 .a.d., tells us that the "Sepher Hilleli" was written about 597 a. d., and that he himself saw two parts of it, containing the books of the Former and those of the Latter Prophets (i.e. Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,

Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). The " SSpher Mtig&h " was probably at least as old. A t least one of these two MSS. was in existence in Muhammad!s time. From Jewish comments on them we know that they contained the same books as the present Hebrew Bible. Of later Hebrew MSS., which are copies of more ancient ones, we have not a few.

If it be asked what has happened to the older MSS., the answer which the Jews themselves give is that, when worn out with being read in the Synagogue, it was customary to place them in the Gentzah (''treasury" or " storehouse"). After a time, when some distinguished Rabbi died, a worn-out MS. used often to be buried with him. On other occasions, after most care fully copying these ancient MSS., it was customary to burn them with all reverence, lest they should be put to some unsuitable use.

If we now turn to the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, the very existence of which bears witness to that of the Hebrew text from which it was translated, we actually possess several MSS., which were written many years before the Hijrah, and which therefore existed in Muhammad's day as they still exist. We proceed to mention the principal of these :

1. Codex Sinaiticus (^UJUtyCJl), written in the fourth or at the beginning of the fifth century.

2. Codex Vaticanus (^UJol^Jl), written in the fourth century, perhaps early in that century.

3. Codex Alexandrinus (^jjC-in), written in the middle or end of the fifth century.

4. Codex Cottonianus QjLijl) of Genesis, written in the fifth or sixth century.

5. Codex Ambrosianus (jU^^ill), written about the first half of the fifth century.

All these MSS. of the Greek Old Testament were actually in existence in Muhammad's time. If any scholar therefore wishes to know what the Taur&t, the Zabur, and the Books of the Prophets were to which the Qur'&n refers, all he has to do is to pay a visit to the Libraries in which these MSS. are treasured up. Our Greek copies of the Old Testament, which are in the hands of all Christian scholars, are printed in accordance with the text found in these ancient MSS. When we compare the Hebrew MSS. already mentioned with these ancient Greek MSS., we find that they agree in every single doctrine. A few slight differences of reading are found, and in some places the Greek translators have wrongly translated a difficult word. The Septuagint Version also differs from our present Hebrew text with respect to the ages of some of the Patriarchs mentioned in Gen. v. and xi. But these differences of reading do not in the slightest degree affect religion in either faith or practice.

Of the Greek New Testament we also possess very ancient MSS. These are on parchment, not on paper, so that Shaikh Rahmatu'llih's remark, " The 1 preservation of the paper and the letters for 1,400 years or longer is extraordinary," is out of place. But in Egypt we have found writings even on papyrus which are more than 1,800 years old, as scholars well know. Many MSS. which contain the Old Testament in the Greek translation also contain the original Greek of the New Testament. 1. One of these is the Codex Sinaiticus, mentioned above. It is preserved in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. 2. A second is the Codex Vaticanus, preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome. 3. A third is the Codex Alexandrinus, which is in the British Museum in London. The dates of these have been already given. 4. In 1907 four portions of a Greek MS., probably belonging to the fourth century, but certainly not later than the sixth, were discovered in a monastery near Sohag in Egypt, opposite Akhmim. One portion contains the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua ; the second contains the

ijle Jojl jl XjL. t a]\ J1 Oj®^ 5 u-Us/Jl jl 1

Izharu'l Haqq, p. 245 of vol. i.

Psalms ; in the third are the Four Gospels ; in the fourth, fragments of St. Paul's Epistles. 5. The Codex Bezae (Jij^jt^Alll), preserved at the University of Cambridge, was written about the beginning of the sixth century. 6. The Codex Ephraemi yJLU),

which was written early in the fifth century, is now in the National Library, Paris.

Besides these larger MSS., we also possess in our libraries smaller MSS. which contain separate portions of the New Testament in Greek. Of these the oldest is a single sheet of papyrus recently discovered with others in the ruins of Oxyrhynchus, near the present village of Bahnasah in Egypt, aboui 120 miles south of Cairo, and hence called one of the Oxyrhynchus (?" - • t-) Papyri. It was written between 200 and 300 a. d., that is to say, between 370 and 270 years before Muhammad's birth. It contains the first and the twentieth chapters of St. John's Gospel. Such recently discovered MSS. are of especial value from our present point of view, because, as they had been buried in the desert sands in what afterwards became a Muslim land, hundreds of years before the Hijrah, and remained in that state until dug up recently, not even the most bigoted of men can say that they were forged after the "descent" of the Qur'&n, or that they have been " corrupted " (¡j~*«•) by Christians since, or in Muhammad's time.

We already possess 3,899 MSS. either of the whole or of separate parts of the Greek New Testament. All of these have been carefully examined and entered in catalogues, so that students may know where they are kept. There are also probably between 2,000 and. 3,000 others not yet catalogued.

So far we have been speaking of MSS. of the New Testament in the original Greek. But we may here mention that some of the existing MSS. of Versions into other languages are also more ancient than Muhammad's time. For instance, of the Peshittd (ll^j) Syriac Version we have at least ten MSS. which were copied in the fifth century from still more ancient ones, and thirty which belong to the sixth century.

In speaking of the Old Testament we mentioned a considerable number of the Versions of it made into languages so ancient that no one now living speaks any of them as his mother tongue. Still more numerous versions of the New Testament into such very ancient languages exist, in whole or in part. Of these we proceed to mention some of the most important. All those here spoken of, except one mentioned below, were made long before Muhammad's time, and it was made during his life, but before the Hijrah.

1. We have several versions into Syriac, especially the Peshittd ((Lij), made in the second or third century ; the Philoxenian Syriac, made about 508 a. d., and its revision by Thomas of Heraclea (jiin 616 a.d. But besides these there were other Syriac Versions, two of which are preserved for us in the MSS. called the Curetonian and the Sinai-Syriac. The early existence of a translation of the New Testament into Syriac is proved by the fact that Tatian, who was born probably in 1 10 a. d., composed a Harmony of the Four Gospels. We possess this work in a slightly varied form in Latin and Armenian. An Arabic version of this " Diatessaronas it is called, was made from the Syriac by Ibnu't Tabib JLli ^Ji), who died in 1043 A- D- Of very great interest are the fragments recently found of a version of the New Testament made from the Greek into the dialect of Syriac spoken in Palestine, for that was the mother tongue of the Lord Jesus Christ. This version was probably made in the fourth century, if not earlier. The MS. which contains what remains of it is called the " Codex Climaci Rescriptus " (^¿UJ^yu). It was written in the sixth century, and contains portions of the four» Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul.

g

Into the Latin language in early times a large number of translations of parts of the New Testament were made. Mention of these is found in the writings of Augustine and Jerome. The latter tells us that in some cases these versions were not very correct, owing to the ignorance of the people who made them for their own use. The best of these translations was the Jtala or Old Latin Version, which belongs to the second century. Owing, however, to the need of having a more correct translation in Latin, Jerome translated the New Testament into that language between 383 and 385 a. d. We possess at least 8,000 MSS. of this translation. It is called the Vulgate (j£*laJI i-^/Lll) Latin Version. Some of these MSS- date from the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. Hence not only was the Bible translated into Latin long before the Hijrah, but even several of the MSS. which we have of that translation were quite old in Muhammad's time.

We have already said, in speaking of the Old Testament, that in very early times versions of it were made into three different dialects of the Coptic language. The same is true with regard to the New Testament. The Buhairic version was made between the

third and the fourth century, the Sa'ldic (^a^Ol) probably about the same time. The third or Bushmflric (^.Aj'll) dialect was subdivided into three sub-dialects, the Fayflmic (^^jJl), the Lower $a'idic, and the Akhmimic (^...»¿It) Into each of these a version of part or the whole of the New Testament was made. The Sa'ldic version is probably the oldest of all. The oldest MSS. of the Coptic New Testament belong to the fourth and fifth centuries.

The Gothic version was made about 360 a. d. The MS. in which it is preserved was written in the fifth or sixth century.

Besides the MSS. of the Bible in various languages, we have also other evidence of a valuable kind to show that our present Old Testament and New Testament are those which existed in Muhammad's time and long before. This evidence is affoided by quotations from the Bible found in the writings of different Christian authors in early days. Their books are some in Greek, some in Latin, some in Syriac, others in Coptic, others in Armenian. A large number of verses from the Bible are found in their works, just as many verses of the Qur'in are found in the writings of Muslim authors who have written in Arabic, Persian, UrdG, Turkish, and other languages. If every copy of the Qur'An were lost, most or all of it could be recovered by collecting these quotations. In the same way, if every copy of the Greek New Testament had perished long before Muhammad's time, it might all be collected from the numerous quotations from it found in the Christian writers of the first few centuries. A few verses are quoted also by heathens, such as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian the Apostate. Besides actual quotations, all the Christian writers show an accurate knowledge of the events in Christ's life, His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, that are detailed in our four Gospels. This is quite a different line of evidence from what we have previously mentioned, and it supports what has been proved by the testimony of those witnesses whom we previously called upon to testify.

Again, in the catacombs beneath the city of Rome, tombs of many Christians of the second, third, and fourth centuries have been found. The inscriptions and the pictures on these tombs show that in those days Christians believed the doctrines taught in our present Bible.

It has now become clear and beyond dispute that long before Muhammad's time the Jews and the Christians had definite canons or lists of books which they held to be Divinely inspired, and that these books were the very same that are found to-day in the Old Testament and the New Testament which are now in circulation, and which have been translated into

G 2

Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Urdti, and some four hundred other languages.

When, therefore, the Qur'&n tells us that Muhammad was directed by God Most High to consult " the People of the Book " as to the teaching to be found in " the Book ", the reference cannot be to any book but the Bible which we now have, since the Old Testament and the New were then, as now, the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. The Qur'fin, as we have seen in Chapter I, names the chief divisions of the Canon of Scripture,—the Taur^t, the Zabflr, the Prophets, the Injtl,—and actually quotes from them passages which are found in our present Bible, The Qur'dn applies to the Bible the very loftiest titles, calling it the Word of God (¿f^tT), the Book of God, the Furqdn (j^i) or Distinction, the Zikr or Reminder. The Qur'an threatens with fearful punishments in the next world (Stirah xl. 72) those who do not reverence the Bible. The Qur'&n claims to have been sent down from God expressly to confirm (SCtrah iii. 2) and preserve this Book (S. v. 52): and Muslims are commanded to believe in the Bible as firmly as in the Qur'&n (SS. ii. 130; iii. 78) itself.

Since, therefore, it has been proved that the Old Testament and the New which are now in circulation among the Jews and the Christians are those which existed among them in Muhammad's time, and to which the Qur'&n bears witness, it is incumbent upon all true Muslims to read them with earnest prayer to God Most Merciful, that He would aid them to understand " the Book of God ", " the enlightening Book " (Sdrah xxxv. 23), and to find it a light and a mercy, " a guidance and an admonition to people of understanding." 1

- 0*0.0 J O - m ,

.(Sflrah xl. 56) yLJlM ^J) ¿¡/^ '

CHAPTER IV

THAT THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND OF THE NEW HAVE NOT UNDERGONE CORRUPTION, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER MUHAMMAD'S TIME

We have already seen that the Qur an calls the Bible " the Word of God " (¿T ^ Sflrah ii. 70), and that the Qur'&n states more than once that God's words cannot be changed or altered. .If both these statements are correct—and of that Christians have no more doubt than have Muslims—then it follows that the Bible has not been changed and corrupted either before or since Muhammad's time.

But this brings us to consider what the Qur'An actually does say, and what is the opinion of the leading commentators. These are not unanimous on the subject, yet it will be seen that they by no means heartily support the opinion of the uneducated.

In Sdrah xviii. (A1 Kahf), ver. 26, it is written : " And recite what has been inspired into thee from the book of thy Lord : there is no changer of His words." Of course the Qur'dn itself is referred to primarily, but the final statement concerns God's words in general. As the Bible is admitted to be God's Word, and the general includes the particular, it is evident that the Bible cannot be changed. Baizawl's comment is: " There is no one who can change or alter them, except Himself." In Stirah x. (Yilnus), ver. 65, we read : " There is no changing the words of God." Baizawi says : "There is no altering His sayings, and there is no breach of His promises." In Sfirah vi. (A1 Inam), ver. 34 : " There is no changer of God's words," and ver. 115," There is no changer of His words," the samt: statement is made. It is true- that in his note on the latter passage Baiz&wl speaks of the Taurat as having become corrupted (^»J^»), but we shall soon see in what sense that expression is used.

Having studied the whole question, most learned Muslim theologians in India at the present day are convinced that the Books of the Old Testament and the New have not been changed (ill*-.), altered (»,!*-) or corrupted (¿J^*) in the sense in which the ignorant employ the latter word. In this view they are supported by Imim Fakhru'ddln Ar Rlzl. For instance, in his commentary on SHrah iii. (Al 'Imrin), ver. 72, in answer to the question, " How was it possible to insert corruption into the Taurit, when its celebrity

among men was so great ? " he gives an answer which should be carefully considered. He first says, " Perhaps this deed proceeded from a small company, for whom it was possible to agree upon corruption : they then presented what they had corrupted to some of the common people, and on this hypothesis the tahrif becomes possible." But this is only an hypothesis, not this commentator's own real opinion, for he next proceeds to state the latter. " And in my opinion," he says, " in explanation of the verse another method is more correct,—that the verses which proved Muhammad's prophetic office needed fixed attention and earnest thought, and the people used to produce concerning them confusing questions and observe objections: therefore those proofs were becoming doubtful to the hearers, and the Jews used to say, ' God's meaning in these verses is what we have mentioned, not what ye have mentioned.' This therefore is what was meant by ' tahrif' and ' twisting tongues' " (Ar Rlzl, vol. ii, pp. 720, 721); see also his commentary on SGrah iv. 48 : vol. iii, pp. 337 and 338, where he mentions the same two views. But he also mentions a third, viz. that, according to some, " They used to enter in unto the Prophet and ask him about a matter, and he would inform them so that they might grasp it: then, when they came out from with him, they corrupted («-¿p») his words."

According to this opinion, it was not Holy Scripture that the Jews corrupted, but Muhammads answers to their questions which they falsely reported when they came out from his presence. If, however, we accept Ar R&zl's own view, it was not the Scriptures which the Jews corrupted, but their own explanations of what the Scriptures said. Even this was done orally, and not in writing.

In his note on Silrah v. (A1 MA'idah), ver. 16, Ar Rizi^1 relates a tale which shows that here also the Jews in reading aloud verses of the Taurit (Deut. xxii. 23, 24) "twisted their tongues" and substituted scourging for stoning, orally, not making any change in the sacred text. In his comment on Sfirah v, ver. 45, Baiz&wi also relates the same story, thus referring this verse also to the same incident. He explains the passage, " They corrupt the words from after their places," by saying : " Deflect them from their places in which God placed them, either (1) verbally, by omitting them or altering their places, or (2) in meaning, by referring them to what is not their sense and applying them to what is not their application " (vol. i, p. 258). Now, if we wish to see which of these two explanations is the right one, all we have to do is to turn to Deut. xxii. 23, 24,2 in the Hebrew original or in any version, ancient or modern. There we find that the " Verse of Stoning " (jL^pf £>i) is still preserved there, just as the Qur'&n and Traditions^3 show that it was in Muhammad's day. Hence we see that the Jews did not in this instance omit the verse or alter the words in their places. Of course

1 Vol. iii, p. 598. Compare the Tradition on the authority of 'Abdu'llah ibn "Umar. about the Verse of Stoning being hidden with his hand by a Jew while he read what came before and what followed it: Mishkdt, Kitabu'l Hudfid : cap. i, p. 301.

1 Stoning was the punishment prescribed in the TaurSt for un- chastity in a betrothed virgin. The kind of death to which an adulterous wife should be put was not specified (Lev. xx. 10). Hence perhaps the dispute among the Jews on the subject.

5 Mishkdt, p. 301.

the latter is the proper meaning of tahrif, only the " trapsposition " of the words took place orally, not in the written text of the Taur&t. Strangely enough the Verse of Stoning was once in the Qur'&n itself, as far as we can learn from Tradition. 'Umar, we are told in the Mishkdtul Masddih,1 said : " Verily God sent Muhammad in truth, and He sent down upon him the Book, and of what God Most High sent down was the Verse of Stoning. The Apostle of God stoned, and we stoned after him, and stoning in the Book of God is justice upon him that hath committed adultery." When the Qur'&n was "collected" by Zaid ibn Th^bit, this verse was omitted, lest it should have been said that 'Umar had inserted anything extra.2 If we may believe 'Umar the Khalifah, any removal of words from their places (SArah v, ver. 45) that took place with reference to the Verse of Stoning occurred in the Quran, not in the Taurdt, and was done by Muslims, and not by Jews.

In the Qur'&n the Jews are sometimes accused of

concealing 3 the truth " knowingly, and of " twisting^4 their tongues", in giving an answer to the question what the teaching of the Old Testament on this subject was. They are also accused of " casting 6 the Word of God behind their backs ". Against them, too, the charge of tahrif is brought in only four places : viz. in Sarahs ii. 70; iv. 48; v. 16, 45. It must be noticed here that, whatever the meaning of this accusation is, it is brought against the Jews only, never against the Christians. This single fact at once leaves the New Testament free from all suspicion of having become corrupted x*) before Muhammad's time or during his life. We must now consider finally in what sense the Qur'dn accuses the Jews of tahrif. We have already seen what Baiz&wi and Ar RAzl say in reference to all these four verses except the first (Sftrah ii, ver. 70).

1 Kitdbu'l Hudfid, fasl i, p. 301.

See marginal note on p. 3or of the Miskidt.

3 SQrah ii. 39. 4 Sflrah iii. 72. 5 Sfirah ii. 95.

With regard to this ve.se both of these commentators agree 1 that the tahrif mentioned in it consisted of a wrong explanation of the Taurat and a concealment of what the Jews knew to be taught in it (compare Surah vi. 91, where it is said that they had the Taurat in writing, but that they showed only part of it and concealed part, or most of it). This was very wrong conduct, but it is a different thing from altering the text of the Taur&t. If we ask at what time the Jews were guilty of tahrif, Baiz&wi says it was in the time of the ancestors of those who were Muhammad's contemporaries ; but Ar R4zi holds that it was those who lived in Muhammad's time against whom the charge is brought. Both commentators mention the opinion of those who fancied that the Jews had purposely altered the Sacred Text; but neither of them accepts this idea as correct. Ar Rizi puts the question,2 " How is this possible in the Book ? The exact number of its letters and its words had been summed up and handed down by continuous Tradition, and was well known in the East and in the West." He remarks that perhaps it will be said that the people were few, and those who were well acquainted with the Book were very few, and therefore it was possible for this tahrif to take place. But, rejecting this idea, he adds, " The meaning of tahrif is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations, and the changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do at this time of ours with the verses which contravene their own religion." This is the view that he himself approves and supports with his authority. He therefore altogether exculpates the Jews from all suspicion of having changed the text of the Old Testament. When it is asserted therefore that the Qur'&n states that the Taurat is corrupted (v-j^*), it should be remembered that this is not true in the sense in which the statement is made by the ignorant of our own time.

1 Ar Razi, vol. i, pp. 573-576; BaizSwi, vol. i, pp. 67, 68.

• Vol. iii, pp. 337, 338.

Hence any Muslim who affirms that the Old Testament and the New are corrupt («_£*•) in text, and no longer exist as they did in Muhammad's day, is contradicting the Qur'Sn, and thereby denying the truth of the book which all true Muslims believe to have been sent down by God Most High to Muhammad with the object of confirming^1 the Taurit and the Injtl. It is impossible to say that the Qur'Sn teaches both that the Taurit and the Injtl are true and inspired, and also that they have been so altered as to be no longer reliable ; for to say this would be to accuse the Qur in of self-contradiction. No believer in God who is the Truth (jil) can believe that He sent down the Qur'&n in order to confirm a corrupted book, and one which, in consequence of such corruption, taught false doctrine. The commentators whom we have quoted support our contention that the Bible had not become corrupted before or during Muhammad's time.

The only question which remains is, " Has it been corrupted since his time ? " It is not difficult to answer this. The MSS. to which we have already referred, written in most cases long before Muhammad's birth, are those from which the copies of the Bible now in circulation are printed. Hence the impossibility of supporting the suggestion that since Muhammad's death either Jews or Christians have corrupted the Bible in any way.

But let us hear what is said on the other side. Among Muslims all the ignorant and some of their learned men who have not carefully studied this subject still fancy that the Bible as it now exists is corrupt. If they are asked when this corruption took place, they are not agreed as to their answer. Some say " before Muhammad's time ", some " after that", some " both before and after". To prove their point they have carefully picked out and repeated every foolish and unsupported accusation which has been brought against the Bible by unbelievers, by such pagans as Celsus,

1 Sflrah v. 52.

and by such heretics as the followers of Mini. These objections have long since been completely refuted. They do not therefore influence men of learning in the West, and it is impossible that really learned men among the Muslims should long continue to be deceived by them. It is sometimes said that certain Christians of the first few centuries accused the Jews of corrupting the text of the Old Testament. Some ignorant Christians did say that the Jews had altered the numbers in the ages of the Patriarchs given in Gen. v. and xi, because it was found that some difference in these numbers existed between the Hebrew text and that of the Greek Septuagint Version. But it is not true (as has been asserted) that Augustine [1]shared this opinion. Now that the matter has been studied for some 1,400 years longer, no man of learning in the West believes that the Jews were guilty of corrupting their Scriptures either in these passages or in any others.

Some Muslim writers speak of the many different readings to be found in the Bible, and say that these prove the corruption of its text. But this argument is baseless. We have such a large number of Biblical MSS. in Hebrew and Greek and other languages that, when we compare them with one another, it" is natural to find various readings. They are found in the same circumstances in all other ancient books too. But what is the nature of these various readings ? Most of them are merely differences of spelling, as if in Arabic one book had ¡¡¿L» and another ¡^L» ; one ¡'^ and another »L^ ; one o^y and another ^ly ; one » and another i^ls. In other instances there are differences of verbal forms, such as those that so frequently meet us in the various readings given by the commentators on the Qur'&n. For instance, Baiz&wi[1] gives us the

following readings in the beginning of SO rah ii. (A1 Baqarah), ver.- 100 :—

- o> o* o

,1 <L>

&c.

, f » 0" Ul ; >

L^^y X >

Of o*

o * -

gi — -L*

I iot ^

Common text: Ibn 'Amir: Ibn Kathir and Abft 'Amr Others Others Others Others 'Abdu'll&h :[1]

So also in Sfirah ii, ver. 285, Baiz&w$[2] gives various readings thus:—

> v

1. Common text: i^sij

Hamzah and A1 Kasi'i:

2. Common text: ¿JL 5>

Yaqflb: 5

Others: S

Besides these, the leading Sunnl Commentators admit various readings in many other passages: for example, in SGrahs vi. 91 ; xix. 35 ; xxviii. 48 ; xxxiii. 6 ; xxxiv. 18; xxxviii. 22.[3] These, however, alter the meaning in each case very slightly, and make no difference in the doctrine of the Qur'&n. But what would Muslim theologians say if a Christian writer, because of these various readings, were to assert that the

Qur'&n had become corrupted ? They would rightly say that the man who drew this conclusion thereby exposed his own ignorance and his bigotry. The same reply might be given to those who, because of various readings in the Bible, bring the like charge against it; but politeness prevents us from uttering such words regarding our opponents. There are many more various readings in the Bible than in the Quran, but the reasons for this are: (i) The size of the Bible is at least four times that of the Qur'&n ; (2) The Bible is much the more ancient; (3) The Bible was composed in three different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not in one only ; (4) The readings in all the different ancient Versions are counted, though many of them are known to be merely errors of translators and not to represent a difference in the original text ; (5) A vastly greater amount of care has been taken to collect the various readings in the case of the Bible than in that of the Qur'&n ; (6) The text of the Bible has never been rectified or edited by'Uthm^n, as was that of the Qur an, nor have we had a Marwfin to burn the most ancient copy spared even by 'Uthm&n.[1]Taking into consideration all the various readings in the Bible, they do not change any doctrine of the Christian faith.

Commentators have occasionally found themselves unable to understand a word or a verse in the Bible. They have therefore fancied that there was in the te^t some error of a copyist, and have called it "corrupt" in the sense of Muslim controversialists, like

Shaikh Rahmatu'llah, have erroneously translated this word by v_££j, and have then asserted that Christian commentators admitted that the Bible was 1. Such an error requires only to be pointed out to be corrected.

As an instance, let us take Dan. iii. 2, 3, where in the Aramaic text the word twtwi ;) occurs. It Was found in no other book, its precise meaning and derivation were unknown. Hence several commentators said that the word was (umUH) due to an error of the copyists. But only a few years ago an Aramaic inscription was found in Egypt, in which this word occurs, and we have also discovered its derivation as well as its meaning. Hence we see how correctly the text has been preserved, even in case of a word like this.

Were such peculiarities^1 found in the Bible as the one that occurs, e.g. in Stirah xx. (Ta Ha), 66, (jliui some commentators would have suspected an error of the copyists for Jxy* . This suspicion might have led to an attempt to correct it, such as the attempt to which is probably due the .reading ¿¿Jpu in Sflrah ii. 285, in place of which some copies had instead of jjju, as Baiziwl's commentary shows.

We are not now concerned with the various readings in the Qur'&n, but we refer to them merely to illustrate what we say regarding those in the Bible. All the Biblical various readings of importance may be divided into three classes : (1) those caused by the carelessness or ignorance of a scribe; (2) those due to some defect in the MS. which was copied ; (3) an attempt to correct what the scribe thought was a previous copyist's blunder, but which was not. No intention of corrupting the Sacred Text can be suspected. Heretics, it is true, did sometimes, to support their own peculiar doctrines, produce verses in their own copies of the New Testament which were not found elsewhere, or more commonly they asserted that certain verses which confuted their errors were not genuine. Yet in each case they really were themselves deceived, and did not intend to corrupt the text willingly and knowingly. But in any case Christians detected the error by consulting their own old MSS. In the same way, had 1 Compare Manor it'I Haqq, pp. 14, 15, 16.

any body of J ewish or Christian fanatics attempted to corrupt the Old Testament or the New by altering or omitting passages which seemed to refer to Muhammad, all other Jews and Christians in the world would have fiercely refused to accept the mutilated copies at the hands of these men, just as they rejected Marcion's attempt to omit the first two chapters of St. Luke's Gospel. The very fact that some heretics, long before Muhammad's time, tried and failed to corrupt the New Testament, shows the impossibility of the task.

Had some King or Emperor or other powerful ruler shortly after Moses' death collected all copies of the Tauriit, or of single chapters of it, and published a new edition of it, relying for some verses on men's memories, copying others from inscriptions on bones and pieces of wood ; and had he then burnt all these and all earlier copies he could find, so as to compel men to use only the text he had caused to be compiled ; we might then have found very few various readings in the Tauriit; but very little reliance could be placed on its correctness. If something similar had been done to all the books of the New Testament at the end of the first century, there would evidently be no way of proving that the new edition had not been corrupted by addition or omission. It would not be possible for a scholar to rely with perfect certainty on a single verse in the whole volume. But this did not happen to the Bible, thanks be to the Most Merciful God. We Christians have never had an 'Uthmin. The Roman Emperors Galerius and Diocletian, being heathens, did endeavour to collect and burn all copies of the Sacred Scriptures, but Christians laid down their lives rather than surrender their books. Later persecutors often made similar attempts, and failed for the same reason. But had our books been all burnt, the Bible would not have perished, for Isaiah has said : " The Word of our God shall stand for ever " (Isa. xl. 8). In all ages very large numbers of Christians have learnt by heart much of the most important parts of the Old Testament and of the New, especially the Psalms and the Gospels. Hence the Word of God could not be destroyed, unless all Christians were destroyed also. During the persecutions in France in the sixteenth century, in many instances the clergy of the Reformed Church had to learn by heart whole books of the Bible, so that, even if their books were taken from them, they might still be able to draw the water of life from the wells of salvation for themselves and for their people. It is well known, moreover, that in all ages Jews and Christians have taken the greatest possible care of their Holy Books, prizing them more than life itself. Hence to say that at any time, whether before or after the Hijrah, they have become corrupted (¿iwhether intentionally or unintentionally, is to assert the occurrence of what is absolutely impossible. None but the ignorant and bigoted can bring such a charge against the Bible.

That this may be clearer than the sun at noonday, let us inquire what advantage to themselves had the Jews or the Christians to expect from corrupting their Sacred Books. They well knew that to attempt such a thing would be to sin against God and to bring down upon themselves grievous punishment, for this is taught both in the Old Testament (Deut. iv. 2) and in the New (Rev. xxii. 18,19). Moreover, they would thereby be destroying their own religion and leading astray from the way of salvation all their own children and children's children for ever. Had Oriental Jews and Christians desired to gain worldly advantages from Muhammad and his followers, they would have tried to introduce passages to support Muhammad's claims, instead of striking out such passages, as Muslims accuse them of doing. By rejecting Muhammad they were condemning themselves and their descendants to " give tribute out of hand and be brought low" (Stirah ix. 29), to occupy the degraded position of the unhappy Zimmts (^¡j). Every now and then they knew that they were in danger of frightful massacres and of undergoing unutterable brutality, as at Ad&nah and its neighbourhood in 1909 a.d. For many centuries such awful scenes have been the natural result of these words of Silrah At Taubah, as interpreted by wicked rulers and the ignorant multitudes. Had the Jews and Christians accepted Muhammad as a Prophet, they would not only have escaped all this cruelty and oppression, but they would also have shared all the worldly privileges belonging to Muslims. Instead of this they have clung to their ancestral faith, though they knew that in every mosque throughout the Ottoman Empire in the Friday prayer all Muslims express their hatred of them in these awful words : " O God, make their wives widows and their children orphans, and give their possessions to be a possession for the Muslims." Is it not clear that, if either Jews or Christians had found in their Holy Scriptures any prophecies relating to Muhammad and bidding them expect and accept him when he came, they would gladly have become his disciples, and thereby gained the good things both of this world and of the world to come ? H ence they had every inducement to endeavour to corrupt their Scriptures, not by omitting, but by inserting, passages relating to Muhammad. That such passages were not inserted is a proof that they did not and could not corrupt their Scriptures. To corrupt them by striking out verses which would have brought them great advantages, and by so corrupting them to condemn themselves to untold misery here and hereafter was not a thing likely to commend itself to either Jews or Christians. Nor can anyone who reflects on the matter believe that this was done, there being no motive whatever for it, and many against it.

But, had either of these religious communities plotted and endeavoured to change and corrupt their Scriptures, the other party would at once have detected and exposed the fraud. There was in Muhammad's time, as both before and after it, great animosity between Jews and Christians, and hence it is impossible to

h

imagine an agreement between them to falsify the Old Testament. Had any one sect of Christians or Jews, or those living in any country, for instance in Arabia, all agreed to corrupt their Scriptures, then the other sects and all chose in other parts of the world would have raised a great outcry against them for such a terrible sin. We have histories written by Jews, others by Muslims, others by Christians, and yet in none of these do we find any account of it ever being proved that such an attempt was made whether during Muhammad's time or after it.

Moreover, had any sect ever thought of the commission of this crime, its accomplishment would have been found absolutely impossible. For before the Hijrah the Christian faith had spread so widely that the greater portion of the population of Asia Minor, Syria, Greece, Egypt, Abyssinia, North Africa, Italy, all professed belief in Christ. Besides this, very many had accepted Christianity in Arabia, Persia, Armenia, Georgia, India, France, Spain, Portugal, England, and Germany. In all these lands different languages were spoken, and into many of these tongues translations of the Bible had been made before Muhammad's time; viz. into Latin, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, -^thiopic, Gothic, Georgian. Besides this, the Old Testament existed in the original Hebrew, and the New Testament in the original Greek. The Old Testament had also been translated into Greek, and much of it into Aramaic.

The Jews also were to be found in all the countries we have mentioned. They were divided into more or less opposed parties, and the Christians into many sects hostile to one another. Had any Jewish or Christian sect therefore attempted to corrupt any one of the Sacred Books, the others would at once have detected and mercilessly exposed the crime. Hence no madman is mad enough to be able to imagine all Jews and Christians agreeing to corrupt the Bible. But, if this had taken place, the crime would have been detected long since, because of the existence of so many MSS. written long before Muhammad's time. The many ancient Versions and the numerous quotations from the Bible found in authors who wrote before Muhammad's time absolutely disprove the charge that the Bible was corrupted in or after his time.

Those Muslims who assert that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their Scriptures say that this was done in order to strike out all the prophecies about Muhammad which those Books contained. We have already seen that the " People of the Book " had no object in doing this, and that the temptation must have rather been to interpolate such passages than to expunge them. But Muhammadan commentators themselves answer the charge by stating that many prophecies of Muhammad are still to be found in the Bible. If so, then the lews and Christians are evi- dently not guilty of striking them out. If the attempt was made to commit such a crime, and if it succeeded so far as to expunge some such prophecies, how are we to account for the retention of others which the Qur'dn itself^1 asserts to exist in the Holy Scriptures ? If these passages really do refer to Muhammad, then it is clear that the Bible has not been corrupted in the manner and with the object stated by Muslims. For example, the Qur'fin states 2 that Muhammad is mentioned by the Lord Jesus Christ. Commentators say that the reference is to Christ's promise of the coming of the Paraclete, and refer to John xvi. 7. Christians do not think that the promise there given did refer to Muhammad. But the fact that the verse still stands in the New Testament shows that it has not been omitted. If Christians had desired to omit any passage relating to Muhammad, surely on no account would they have left this verse in the Bible, for it is the only one distinctly appealed to in the Qur'&n as proving Muhammad's claims. Moreover, everyone of learning among

1. Sfirah

vii. 156. But see Part III, ch. ii, of this Treatise.

2. SOrah lxi. 6.

h 2

them knew that Mfini had made a claim to be the Paraclete, basing his pretensions upon this verse. Yet, when he had been detected as an impostor, and when his religion had perished off the earth, Christians still preserved this verse in the Gospel.

The Jews found in the Old Testament many Messianic Prophecies. The Christians claimed that these had in large measure already been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, and asserted that this was a proof that He was the Messiah. These Messianic passages were and are a terrible condemnation of the Jews. Yet the Jews have never attempted to omit them from the Old Testament. Had they wished to destroy the prophecies relating to Christ, they would have tried to erase from their Holy Scriptures the following passages, besides very many others : Gen. xlix, 10 ; Deut. xviii. 15, 18; Ps. xxii. 14-18; Isa. vii. 14; Isa. ix. 6, 7 ; Isa. xi. i-ro; Isa. lii. 15-fin. and liii; Dan. vii. 13, 14; Dan. ix. 24-27; Mic. v. 2; Zech. xii. 10. For all these passages clearly speak of Him (compare Luke xxiv. 25-27). Another series of passages which the Jews would have struck out of the Bible, if they had dared to endeavour to corrupt it, are those which recite and condemn their past sins. But even these are found to-day in the Hebrew Old Testament as well as in all the Versions- God had commanded them to observe the Law of the Taur&t (Joshua i. 7) and not to add thereto or detract therefrom (Deut. iv. 2 ; xii. 32). Hence they have until now so carefully preserved the whole of the Old Testament that, lest a word or a letter should be lost, they have counted every letter and word in each book, and recorded the numbers. The copies of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew in use among Christians are the same as those that are used by Jews: in fact, they are printed at the same presses.

Lest there should still remain in any reader's mind the supposition that perhaps the Jews may have corrupted their Old Testament before Christ's time, though they evidently could not have done so afterwards, it should be observed that, as the Qur'An truly^1 says, Christ confirmed the Sacred Scriptures which they then had, and which are the very same that they now have. Neither Christ nor any one of His Apostles have in any part of the New Testament accused the Jews of corrupting their Scriptures, though their real sins are denounced. On the contrary, everywhere the New Testament asserts the genuineness of the Old Testament, and urges men to study it. This will be clear from such passages as: Matt. v. 17, 18; xxii. 31,32; Mark vii. 6-10; Luke xi. 29-32; xxiv. 25-27; John v. 39, 45-47 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16. Hence it is plain that in the time of Christ and His Apostles the Old Testament was admitted to consist of inspired, true and uncorrupted books. Surely, if the Jews had falsified them, Christ would have openly rebuked them for such great wickedness. He would also doubtless have pointed out the corrupted passages, and He would have corrected these, for the instruction of His disciples.

This argument serves also to show that the Scriptures had not been destroyed or corrupted at the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar or during the Babylonian captivity. Otherwise Christ would have told us this.

Some Muslim writers venture to assert that they can prove that the Taur&t has been purposely corrupted in certain places. One of these is said to be Deut. xxvii. 4. Here the Samaritan Pentateuch has " on Mount Gerizim ", while the Hebrew has " on Mount EbalBut as not only the Hebrew but all the ancient versions (Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitt£, Armenian, ¿Ethiopic) have " Ebaland not " Gerizim ", this is almost certainly correct. It was not the Jews but the Samaritans who tried to corrupt the text, but they evidently failed to do so. Or their reading may possibly be due to the honest attempt of some scribe to correct what he fancied to be another copyist's blunder, since in ver. 12 the blessings are to 1 Sfirahs iii. 44; v. 50.

be uttered by certain tribes standing on Mount Gerizim. Had the Jews tried to change anything, they would have changed ver. 12, not ver. 4. There is therefore proof that -the Jews did not corrupt this passage, though perhaps the Samaritans attempted to do so. If they tried, they failed.

Again, as has already been pointed out, the numbers which give the ages of the Patriarchs in Gen. v. and xi. differ somewhat in the Hebrew from those found in the Samaritan copy of the Taur&t and in the Septua- gint Version. But this is almost certainly accidental. In all old books figures are very apt to be mistaken for one another. In these matters it is clear that the various readings affect neither morality nor doctrines.

Certain Muslim writers have endeavoured to prove that there are many contradictions in the Bible, and they allege this as a proof that the books have been corrupted. But among all reasonable men it is an admitted fact that, when two or more writers give separate accounts of any event, there always is found some difference between one narrative and another ; otherwise collusion is considered as proved. Such differences may amount to contradiction in the opinion of one who does not know all the facts of the case, but not in that of men who have studied the matter thoroughly. The very existence of such differences and apparent contradictions, e.g. in the two genealogies of Christ (Matt, i ; Luke iii) and the two accounts of Judas' death (Matt, xxvii. 5 ; Acts i. 18, 19), is a conclusive proof that no one has corrupted the text of the Scriptures : otherwise these differences would have been removed.

Some assert that the New Testament has been falsified by the interpolation of the following passages : Markxvi. 9-20; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11 ; 1 John v. 7. This statement is not quite accurate. We Christians have discovered that these verses do not exist in the earliest MSS., and hence we have recognized that they are, as it were, marginal notes which some scribe fancied were part of the text, and therefore copied into it. But these passages do not alter a single doctrine. The facts mentioned very concisely in Mark xvi. 9-20 are more fully detailed elsewhere in the Gospels. The story of the adulteress is related by Papias.1 The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is clearly taught in Matt, xxviii. 19, and in very many other places. Hence the omission of the verses we have mentioned does not in the slightest degree affect a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

In this respect there is a great difference between the Bible and the Qur'ân. Men of learning know that some of the Shi'ah party have affirmed that certain verses in the Qur'ân have been altered by the Khalîfahs 'Umar and 'Uthmân, in order to conceal the fact that 'All should have been the first Khalîfah, and that the Imâmat should have continued in his family. Others say that the whole of a Sûrah, which they call Sûratun Nûrain, has been omitted for the same reason. It is not our purpose to inquire whether or not there is any truth in these statements, although it is evident that to Muslims the matter is of the very greatest importance ; for, if even the Sûratun Nûrain is properly part of the Qur'ân, then the fate of the Sunnîs is not a happy one, since in that Sûrah it is said of them : " Verily 2 for them there is a place in Hell : from it they shall not deviate." Mîrzâ Muhsin of Kashmir, sur-amed Fânî, in his Dabistân-i Maçâhib (printed at _>ombay, a.h. 1292, pp. 220, 221), gives the whole of the Sûratun Nûrain, and says that some of the Shi'ah party "state that 'Uthmân, having burnt the original documents (., struck out some of the Sûrahs

which were in favour of 'All and the superiority of his family : and one of those Sûrahs^3 is this". He also

1 Eusebius, Ecc. tiist., Bk. iii, ch. 39.

„t »O . s -- ' a ~ ~ »'- »

y LAi- i^-fr* gjj fV cjL 2 S ^«J j^Lw ^Lîf S Jj\ ^i*> j '

Us<ir J\ j\ Jj } _ if l/jT J-ii ) Jc ^U

.{Dabistdn-i Mazâhib, p. 220)

informs us that some of the 'All Il&hls deny that the Qur'dn is the original one that was sent down on Muhammad, as Muslims in general say it was, but that these sectaries affirm that the Qur'Sn which now exists is the composition of Abd Baler, 'Umar, and 'Uthm£n. It is quite true that all scholars believe that these statements are wrong, but yet no one can deny that they have been made and maintained with certain arguments by some Muslims. For our present purpose it is sufficient to point out that these questions about the asserted additions to or omissions from the text of the Qur'dn affect the salvation of every Muslim, if Isl&m is God's way of salvation. On the other hand, the questions that have been raised about the text of the Bible not only do not affect the salvation of a single Christian, but they do not even render doubtful one of the least important of the doctrines of the Christian faith.

Another argument brought against the Bible by some Muslims is that certain books which were once part of it have been lost; for instance, the Book of Jashar (Joshua x. 13) and the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. xxi. 14). But these were never part of the Bible, just as the books ascribed in the Qur'&n to Abraham and others were never parts of the Qur'in.[1]

It has been said that the Roman Catholic Bible contains books which are omitted from that of the Protestants. In answer to this it should be known that in the New Testament all Christians receive the same Canonical Books. To the Old Testament the Roman Catholics have added certain books which were not accepted by the early Christian Church, which were never in the Jewish Canon of Scripture, and which do not exist in the Hebrew language. We Protestants receive the

Hebrew Canonical Books of the Old Testament as they were received and confirmed and handed down to us by the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles. But even if the additional books received by the Roman Catholics and the Greek Church be admitted, their admission will not alter a single doctrine of the Christian faith. There are differences of doctrine between these Churches and the Protestant Churches, but these are not based upon different Scriptures, just as the existence of so many sects among Muslims is not due to differences in the Qur'án which is in circulation among them all.

We have already spoken about the ancient MSS. of the Old Testament and of the New in their original languages, and about the ancient Versions of the Bible in different tongues which are no longer spoken among men. But besides all this we must briefly point out the evidence which early Christian writers give upon the subject with which this chapter deals. We. have books written by some hundreds of these men, some in Greek, others in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian, beginning in the first century and continuing up to Muhammad's time and later. The earliest non- Canonical Christian writing which remains is Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians (a.d. 93-95); then come Ignatius's seven Letters (a.d. 109-116) and one by Polycarp (about a.d. 11 o) : then the Epistle wrongly ascribed to Barnabas (a.d. 100-130). All these wrote in Greek, and we still have these letters. After them come great numbers of writers in the other languages which we have mentioned. All whose works in whole or in part have survived bear witness to the fact that the faith of the Christians of their own times was the same as is contained in the Bible which we now have. Moreover, in the works of these authors are found quotations from the Holy Scriptures. These sometimes give merely the general sense, sometimes they quote the actual words of the verses found in the Old Testament and the New.

This is another proof that the Bible has never at any time been corrupted, whether before or after theHijrah, and that no other books have ever been substituted for the genuine books of the Old Testament and the New.

If a body of wicked and godless men in Muhammad's time or later had wished to corrupt, change, or falsify the Holy Scriptures, they would have found it an absolutely impossible undertaking. They would have had to obtain and falsify all Biblical MSS. in the original Hebrew and Greek, wherever these might be. This would entail travelling over a large part of Europe, Asia, and Africa, visiting every Church and Synagogue, every library, every Christian or Jewish house of any importance. But it would have been necessary to find and alter all copies of the Versions of the Bible too. These were in Latin, Greek, Coptic, Gothic, Syriac, /3£thiopic, Armenian, Georgian, &c. Then a visit would have had to be paid to the Samaritans, and permission gained to tamper with their ancient and carefully treasured MSS. of the Taurdt and their later version of it into their own tongue. The J ews would have had to corrupt their Aramaic Targums. Then the forgers would have had to find every Christian book written in the languages already mentioned, in order to falsify the quotations from the Sacred Scriptures which it might contain. If a single book in any of these languages escaped falsification, all their trouble would be in vain. Then it would be necessary to get all Jews and Christians to forget what they had learnt of the Bible, and to falsify the tablets of their memories too. No man of understanding will fancy that all this was possible : still less will he believe that men would be able to prevail on the whole Jewish and Christian world to agree to such a crime[1] in order that thev might here be oppressed by Muslims and hereafter might justly suffer from God's wrath.

Let us imagine, if we can, a body of Muslims in our own day, or even before the invention of printing and lithography, determining to falsify every copy of the Qur'án and all the religious books of the whole Islámic world. How absurd does such an idea seem! Yet the Qur'án is not translated into so many tongues as the Bible was in Muhammad's time. Even if every copy of the Qur'án were lost or corrupted, its text might easily be reproduced from the quotations in the works of the Commentators, and even in such books as Ibn Hishám's Strain r Rasúl, in Kátibu'l Wáqidi's Kit&bul Maghazi, Futühush Shám, Futúhu'l Misr, Futúhu'l 'Ajam, in. the Histories of At Tabari and Ibn Athlr, and in other ancient books. No one can conceive of the possibility of corrupting all these, even though they are all in one and the same language. How much greater the task of falsifying all Biblical quotations in so many different languages !

But, had this task been accomplished, the fraud would have been exposed through the discovery of the very ancient MSS. of long-lost early Christian works during the last few years. Not a few writings of ancient times in Greek, Coptic. Armenian, and Syriac, the names of which were known to us, but which every scholar believed to have perished many hundreds of years ago, have recently been found in old convent libraries and elsewhere. Of these three are especially famous : (1) the Didakhé or " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles " (a.d. 131-160); (2) the Apology of Arts- tides (a.d. 138-147); and (3) the Diatessarón of Tatian (a.d. 160-170). As these books were lost long before Muhammad's time, they cannot possibly have been corrupted after his appearance. They show us that the Christian Faith in those very early days taught exactly the same doctrines that are found in the Old Testament and the New now in circulation throughout the world. Hence the Christian Faith taught in the

Bible has not been corrupted since the days of the Apostles.

Another fact which confutes the vulgar theory of tahrif is that the Khalifah 'Umar, when his armies conquered Syria, 'Ir&q, and Egypt, found at Caesarea, Alexandria, and many other places, great libraries full of books. Among these were many copies of the Holy Scriptures and of books composed by Christian teachers. The Muslims might have preserved these books and referred to them in after ages, in order to know whether or not the Christian Scriptures in later times were or were not falsified. But Abti'l Faraj informs us that, when the Khalifah 'Umar was asked what was to be done with the great Alexandrian Library, he ordered it to be destroyed. This was done. In the same way the author of the Kashfuz Zundn ■ i -<) tells us that the same Khalifah

ordered the libraries of Persia also to be destroyed when Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqds (^13, a*-.)[1] con

quered Persia. If the Muslims had preserved some of the copies of the Bible that then fell into their hands, they would have been able to prevent the possibility of the falsification of these books in later times, should anyone have wished to corrupt Holy Scripture. Believing as they did that the Qur'in was the " Protector " (u^l, SArah v. 52) of " the Book of God such conduct would have been very suitable on the part of Muslims. But what the Muslims failed to do the Christians did, for (as we have seen) we have in our possession not a few MSS. of the Bible which were written some centuries before the Hijrah, and which escaped the fate that probably befell many in the Alexandrian Library and elsewhere. Learned Muslims who visit Rome, or St. Petersburg, or Paris, or London, can see some of these ancient MSS. for themselves. Moreover, photographic reproductions of some of them have been published. It is from a com- parison of these MSS. with one another that our present Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament are published, and from them come the translations now circulated in more than 400 languages.

From the evidence which we have briefly summed up in this chapter it is clear that the most learned Muslim commentators of the past and the leading scholars at present among them are right in asserting that the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews and Christians have not undergone corruption either before or since Muhammad's time. We have also seen that the Old Testament and the New have never been abrogated and can never be abrogated in the facts which they relate or in the doctrines and moral principles which they teach. It has been shown that the Old Testament and the New now in circulation are those which were in the hands of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's time, and that the Qur'ân itself bears witness to them, calling them by many lofty titles, bidding Muslims profess faith in them,1 and asserting that it was itself sent down by God Most High in order to confirm the Bible and to be a " Protector " 2 to it.

Hence it follows that those Muslims who truly believe in the Qur'ân must see that it is their duty not to let themselves be misled by the prejudices of the ignorant, but to obey the Qur'ân by taking the Bible for a light and a guidance.3 To do this it is necessary to study it with sincere prayer to the Most Merciful God that He may open their hearts to understand its teachings and walk in the right way, the way of those unto whom He is gracious, not of those who go astray.

1 e.g. in Sûrahs ii. 130; iii. 78. * Sûrah v. 52.

s Sûrah xl. 56.

PART II

Of which the aim is to set forth the principal Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, and to show that their teaching is in conformity with the Criteria of the True Revelation as stated in the Introduction.

CHAPTER I

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE MAIN CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE

The Bible consists of two parts, the Old Testament and the New. The former is often called the Taur&t and the latter the Injil, because the Law of Moses and the Gospel are the first books in these two volumes respectively.

It has been already stated [1] that the Jews divide the Old Testament into three main parts, the Law (Taurat), the Prophets, and the Books (ubLUl). This third portion used more anciently to be called the Psalms Oh?1)' kecause it begins with the Psalms. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, except a few chapters which are in Aramaic. The original language of the New Testament is Greek. The Jews have most carefully preserved the Old Testament in its original languages up to our own days. The Christians have accepted the Old Testament from the hands of the Jews on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.[1] Our Canon of the Books of the Old

Testament is exactly the same as that of the Jews in Palestine was in Christ's time and is still in all lands.

The Old Testament contains the Divine Revelation which was written down by Prophets and other Divinely commissioned men before the coming of Christ. In most cases the various books bear their writers' names, but in some these are known only by tradition. Yet the fact that our Lord Jesus confirmed these books, as the Qur'in also states,1 justifies us in accepting them on His authority. In ancient times the Old Testament was divided into twenty-two books,2 corresponding with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Having separated the Book of Ruth from Judges and the Lamentations of Jeremiah from his prophecies, the Jews now often count twenty-four Books. It is more usual to divide Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, inter two books each, and the twelve Minor Prophets are counted as twelve, books, and not as one. Hence we now number thirty-nine books in the Old Testament instead of twenty-two. Yet this does not imply any addition to the Sacred Text, as the ignorant might imagine.

The Taur&t of Moses consists of five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. These relate the history of the creation of the world and of man, and tell us how Adam, the Father of Mankind, disobeyed God, and thereby fell into sin and incurred death, but that the Most Merciful God then promised to send into the world a Saviour born of the seed of the woman (Gen. iii. 15). When men sank deeper into sin and were guilty of all kinds of cruelty, God sent the Flood upon the earth to destroy all mankind except Noah and his family. After the Flood, all the nations which sprang from Noah gradually fell away from the worship of the True God. But from among all men God selected one, Abraham, who worshipped the True and Only God. Because of his faith Abraham, the Friend of God, obtained the promise 3 that the

1 Sfirah v. 50, &c. 2 Part I, ch. iii.

3 Gen. xii. 1-3; xv. 6; xvii. 15-21 ; xviii. 18; xxii. 18.

coming Saviour would be born among the descendants of his son Isaac. Of Isaac's two sons, God selected Jacob, whom He named Israel,1 and with him He renewed His covenant and His promise to Abraham that all the families of the earth should be blessed in him and his seed.2 In fulfilment of this promise, God afterwards raised up the Prophets from his seed, as the Qur'&n admits,8 so that they might with true wisdom reveal God's will, and by Divine Inspiration might write " the Book", bearing witness to the promised Messiah.

Before the accomplishment of God's promise, however, it was necessary that the sons of Israel should be properly trained to become the religious teachers of the human race. The Taurat tells us how they went down into Egypt, how they resided there for hundreds of years and became a numerous nation. When at last the King of Egypt cruelly oppressed them, God raised up Moses, and by his hand led His people out of Egypt (about 1320 b.c., or,as the Jews say, 1314 b.c.). Then at Mount Sinai God exhibited His glory to the Children of Israel and gave them the Ten Commandments,4 along with many other injunctions, all of which are recorded in the Taurit. One object of the Mosaic Law was to enable the people to grow in the knowledge of God's Holiness, a doctrine then unknown to all but Israel, and now not realized by any but Jews and Christians. Another object of that Law was to prevent the Israelites from becoming mixed with the surrounding heathen, lest the light of the truth and the doctrine of the Divine Unity should be lost in heathen darkness. This separation was to last until the coming of the Saviour of the world, unto whom the nations were to be obedient.4

After forty years' wandering and residence in various parts of the wilderness now called At Tih (L3i), God led the children of Israel to the borders of the Promised

' Gen. xxxii. 28. 2 Gen. xxviii. 14. 3 Sfirah x!v. 15.

4 Exod. xx. 6 Gen. xlix. 10.

Land of[1] Canaan. The Book of Joshua tells us of the conquest of Canaan and of the partial destruction of the idolatrous nations there, whom God Most Holy had condemned because of their fearful wickedness. They used to burn their children alive as offerings to false gods, and to indulge in licentious abominations [1] in honour of the evil beings whom they worshipped. We are told that Israel took possession of Canaan in accordance with God's promise to Abraham.[2]The Books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles tell us the main facts in the history of the Children of Israel from that time forward until the Babylonian Captivity. During the first few centuries of their residence in Canaan, the Israelites many times fell into idolatry, and were punished by God, who on that account permitted the heathen rulers of the surviving Canaanites and other neighbouring nations to oppress them. But whenever His people repented and turned to God, He mercifully forgave them and interposed to save them from their enemies, by raising up among them some brave warrior to be their champion. After the reign of their first king, Saul (who is called Tdldth, ¿¿Jit, in the Qur'&n),[3] God appointed David 6 king over all the Children of Israel, about 1020 b.c. He was succeeded by his son Solomon,6 who reigned from 980 to 938 b. c. The Biblical History goes on to tell how ten of the tribes rebelled against Solomon's son Rehoboam, and formed the Kingdom of Israel, leaving only the Kingdom of Judah to the family of David. The Kingdom of Israel soon fell away into idolatry, as did later the Kingdom of Judah. Hence the Israelites were conquered by the Assyrians, and many of them were carried away captive to Media, Persia, and other lands in 730 b.c. Judah followed the same evil course, and was subjected to the Babylonian yoke in 606 b. c. From this time they remained in bondage to Babylon for seventy years, until 536 b.c. In 587 b.c., Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, destroyed the Temple which Solomon had built at Jerusalem, and carried the chief of the Jews to Babylon.

The Book of Ezra tells us that, when the seventy years' subjection to Babylon spoken of by the Prophet Jeremiah 1 was ended, God delivered them by turning the heart of Cyrus, King of Persia, who had become ruler of Babylonia and many other lands, to give them permission to return to Palestine. The account of the restoration of the Temple and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is given in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. But when the Jews rejected the promised Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Gospels relate, He predicted that terrible punishment would fall upon them, and that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed.2 In accordance with this and with Moses' prediction,3 the Romans destroyed the city and the Temple in a. d. 70. From that time to this the Jews have never had a king or a country of their own, but have ever remained scattered overall the earth, often most cruelly oppressed. Not yet are the days of their " tribulation " * ended.

From the Bible we gather that the Divine purpose in thus dealing with the Children of Israel and in commanding historians and prophets to record the most important events in their history was threefold : (1) To show the Jews themselves (and in later times all other nations) that the heart of man is so prone to rebellion that, in spite of God's great mercy and the bestowal of so many blessings and the continual guidance which He had vouchsafed by His holy prophets, it was yet possible for men to forget the True God, and at last to fall into idolatry. (2) To teach the Israelites that release from sin and from the dominion of man s carnal

1 Jer. xxv. 11, 12. a Matt, xxiv; Mark xiii; Luke xxi.

* Deut. xxviii. 15-68. 4 Matt. xxiv. 29.

desires cannot be gained through the mere knowledge of the commandments of God or through the formal observance of outward rites and ceremonies, but that something more than this is necessary; so that thus there might gradually spring up in their hearts a desire and longing for the Saviour who had been promised in the Law (Taur&t) and the Prophets,1 and that they might feel their need of Him. (3) That the Gentiles, having learnt how God had dealt with the Israelites and what a lofty revelation of His own Nature He had in His mercy made them, by showing kindness to them and revealing His Justice and His Holiness and the Moral Law, might come to know that their idols were nothing, and that the God of Israel was the One True God, Creator of Heaven and Earth; that thus the Gentiles also might be led to desire to serve Him and receive the light and salvation which the promised Saviour of the World should bring when, in accordance with prophecy, He should be born of David's progeny^2 in the town of Bethlehem.3

Besides the books which we have already mentioned as containing the history of God's dealings with the Children of Israel, there are others which contain instruction in God's will, and also prayers, praises, and thanksgivings to God Most High, as well as prophecies of events which were future at the time when they were first uttered, though many of them have since been fulfilled. Among these are the Book of Job. the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. Although much of each Prophet's teaching was primarily intended for the warning and encouragement of the people of his own time, yet all of them by their teaching and prophecies were preparing the way for the advent of the promised Saviour, whose future coming had been Divinely announced to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. From these prophecies those who were

1. See John v. 45-47 ; Luke xxiv. 25-27.

2. Isa. xi. 1-10; Jer. xxiii. 5. 3 Micah v. 2.

I 2

pious and God-fearing among the Children of Israel might learn the chief facts about the time when He would come, the place of His birth, to what tribe and family He would belong, His character and the Divinity of His Nature, the kind of deeds that He would do, the sufferings wljich He would undergo for men, and how He would be put to death, and would rise again from the dead without seeing corruption. They might also understand the nature of the salvation which He would offer to men.

The Sacred Books of the Old Testament from beginning to end teach the Unity of God. The creed of the Jews is contained in Deut. vi. 4: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord." This is the foundation-stone of all true religion, as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself afterwards declared (Mark xii. 29). But in order that this great truth may be of practical value to mankind, it is necessary that God should reveal Himself to men in such a manner that He may be known and loved. Otherwise mere belief in the Divine Unity is of no more real value than belief in the unity of the Sun or in any other great fact, and will not save us, for the devils know that God is One and yet are not thereby saved (Jas. ii. 19), because they do not know and love Him. Hence it was that, in accordance with the predictions of the prophets of Israel, in the fullness of time He who alone is the Word of God (¿f Ljf: cf. John i. 1) came to reveal God to us, and thus to give everlasting life to true believers in Himself, according to His own declaration (John xvii. 3).

The great mass of the Jews did not accept the Promised Messiah when He came, because they were worldly-minded, and desired (not deliverance from sin, but only) freedom from the Roman yoke. They longed, not for the true riches and for peace with God, but to become the rulers of the world and to enjoy the plunder of the Roman and the Persian empires. Yet their own Scriptures clearly taught that at His first Advent the Promised Messiah would come without worldly pomp and power, that He would be despised and rejected by men, that He would not strive nor cause His voice to be heard in the streets, but would bind up broken hearts and deliver the captives of Satan from the slavery of sin. It was because of this love of the world and want of spiritual religion that many of the Jews rejected Jesus Christ, But the spiritually minded among them accepted Him before His Crucifixion or after His Ascension and became the heralds of salvation to the Gentiles.

The New Testament was written by the Apostles (ci>i>!pO and their disciples with the aid of the Divine Inspiration promised by Christ^1 Himself. The Gospels contain accounts of Christ's teaching and miracles, and they tell us how in Him so many Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled. From them we learn the way of salvation, because they relate how Christ offered His own life as an Atonement for the sins of the whole world, and how on the third day after His crucifixion He rose again' from the dead ; how during forty days afterwards He often appeared and taught His disciples. He commanded them to evangelize all nations,2 promising to give them the Holy Spirit, that they might thus receive power from God to be His-witnesses unto the uttermost parts of the earth. He bade them wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit should come^3 upon them. He. finally ascended to heaven before their eyes, leaving the promise of His return.4 Many of the words and deeds of Christ were written down by His disciples during His lifetime. After His Ascension they at first preached orally His Gospel, the Good News of the Kingdom of God. This Gospel was finally written down in four separate books, under the respective titles of the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, before the end of the first

1. John xiv. 25, 26; xvi. 13-15.

2. Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Acts i. 8. s Acts i. 4, 5

4 John xiv. 3 ; Acts i. 9-11.

century of the Christian era. Of these four Evangelists, Matthew and John were Apostles. Mark, the Apostle Peter's disciple, wrote what he learnt from Peter as well as from others, so that in his Gospel we have the evidence of a third Apostle. Besides this, the Gospel according to Mark contains many passages which must have been written down before the Ascension. Luke, a friend and disciple of Paul the Apostle, wrote in his Gospel the evidence not of one but of very many who had been eye-witnesses^1 of the events which he records. In the Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude we have the evidence of others who were among Christ's most faithful friends and disciples. John, His dearest earthly friend, has also left us Epistles. Paul's Epistles, the earliest of which (i and 2 Thess.) were written about twenty-two or twenty-three years after the Ascension, tell us the way of salvation through Christ, and the duty of Christians to walk worthy of their holy calling and so please God. Part of the earliest Christian creed is given in one of Paul's Epistles (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4) in these words : " Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and He was buried, and He hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Thus it is clear that the very earliest Christians thought that the essence of both the Old Testament and the New was the Atonement for sin made by Christ Jesus, and the proof of its efficacy afforded by His Resurrection. Among the other books of the New Testament, the Book of the Acts tells us of the descent^2 of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete,3 seven days after Christ's Ascension, and how the beginning of the evangelization of the Gentile world was made. The Epistle to the Hebrews explains the relation in which the Law of Moses stood to the Gospel of Christ. The Revelation of St. John prophetically describes the struggle between the Church and the world, and the final triumph of Good over Evil. (The ninth chapter of Revelation is of especial interest to Muslims.) That book declares

1 Luke i. 1-4. 3 Acts ii. 8 John xvi. 7.

that Satan will strive to separate men from Christ by persecutions and temptations, that Antichrist-will come to lead them astray, and that, saved by faith, the true Christians will come forth from the furnace of affliction like pure gold from the crucible, and that finally Christ will descend from heaven with power and great glory to establish for ever in the renewed heaven and the renewed earth His eternal Kingdom, into which " there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie : but only they which are written in the Lamb's book of life " (Rev. xxi. 27),

All these New Testament books agree with those of the Old Testament in pointing out that the way of salvation, the way in which all nations are to be blessed (Gen. xxviii. 14), is through faith in the promised seed of the woman (Gen. iii. 15), who was born of the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 26-3Z[1]) to save His people from their sins (Matt. i. 21), who gave His life a ransom for many (Isa. liii. ii; Matt. xx. 28), who rose again for our justification (Ps. xvi. 9-11 ; Acts ii. 22-36; Rom. iv. 25), and through whom alone man can come to the true knowledge of God (John xiv. 6) and can obtain eternal salvation (Acts iv. 12). Thus we learn how the promises made by God thousands of years ago to Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David have been accomplished, how man is to be freed by the Saviour from the thraldom of sin and Satan, and how the earth is to be brought to a state of perfection and happiness far greater than in the days before Adam's sin.

To the honoured readers of these pages it will now be manifest that the Old Testament and the New taken together form but one Revelation of God Most High. The Old Testament tells us how men became sinners, and how God promised a Saviour from sin. The New Testament informs us how that promise was fulfilled, how Christ Jesus has made atonement for the sins of the whole world (i John ii. 2) and offers salvation to all who truly turn to Him (Matt. xi. 28 ; John vi. 37).

With regard to the Prophets and the Apostles we Christians hold that they were men specially commissioned by God Most High to be preachers and teachers of mankind. Their commission was not to rule, but to warn men to turn from their sins and serve God. The Prophets and the Apostles were not sinless, since only one sinless Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, has ever lived on earth. Regarding His sinlessness we have the testimony of Prophets (Isa. liii. 9; cf. John viii. 46), His own disciples (1 Pet. ii. 22 ; 1 John iii. 5 ; Heb. iv. 15), and even of those who put Him to death (Luke xxiii. 4, 14, 47). The Qur'&n attributes sin[1] to other prophets, but none to Jesus. With this Muslim Traditions (e^Ul) agree.[2] But in delivering their Divinely given message both Prophets and Apostles were preserved by God's Holy Spirit from teaching any error or omitting any doctrine necessary for salvation (Matt. x. 20 ; Mark xiii. 11 ; John xiv. 26 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 21). We Christians believe that Inspiration (fW!) w^s bestowed on the writers of the books of the Bible, but we do not believe that the Taur&t and the Injil were composed in heaven, ages before the creation of the world, and afterwards dictated word by word to the Prophets and the Apostles, and written down by them or at their command. God did not in such a manner use merely the hands and the tongues of these inspired men ; besides this He employed the training and the wisdom which He had given them, their experience, their learning, their minds, hearts, and spirits as well as their bodies, in communicating through them His teaching to mankind. Hence in Holy Scripture a human element is found as well as a Divine element.

There are in the Bible some doctrines which are above our finite human comprehension. Some people therefore fancy that these are contrary to reason. In reality, however, this is not so. As our reason is God's gift, His True Revelation cannot be contrary to it. But as our Reason has its limits, it is unreasonable to expect that it should be able fully to comprehend the infinite Nature of God Most High. If the Bible, or any other book which professes to come from God, gave us such an account of Him as to make everyone able to understand in its entirety the Divine Mode of Being as therein stated, that fact would at once prove the falsity of that book's claim to be from the Infinite God. It will be well to remember this when in the next chapter we consider what has been revealed to us regarding the Divine Nature and Attributes.

CHAPTER II

THF ATTRIBUTES OF GOD MOST HIGH, AS TAUGHT IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New declare that the Existence of God is evident from that of the universe which He has created, and that man's conscience and reason also bear witness to their Divine Creator (Ps. xix. 1-4 ; Acts xvii. 24-29). As the existence of the Necessarily Existent One f is thus self-evident, Scripture states that the denial of God's existence is the outcome of wilful ignorance and wicked folly (Ps. xiv. 1 ; liii. 1 ; Rom. i. 19-23). The Bible tells us that God is One (Deut. iv. 35. 39 ; vi. 4 ; Isa. xliv. 8 ; xlv. 5 ; xlvi. 9 ; Mark xii. 29 ; John xvii. 3; 1 Cor. viii. 4; Eph. iv. 6); that He is a Spirit (John iv. 24) and invisible (John i. 18 ; 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16); that He is Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable (Ps. xc. 2; cii. 24-27; Jas. i. 17); Omnipresent and Omniscient (Ps. cxxxix. 1-12; Jer. xxiii. 23, 24; Acts xvii. 27, 28); Almighty and All-wise (Gen. xvii. 1; Job xii. 7-10, 13; Ps. civ. 24; Isa. xl. 12-18; 1 John iii. 20).

In like manner God is represented as Holy (Rev. xix. 2 ; xxi. 8; 1 Sam. ii. 2 ; Ps. xxii. 3 ; cxlv. 17 ; Isa. vi. 3 ; Rev. iv. 8), Just and Righteous (Num. xxiii. 19 ; Deut. xxxii. 4 ; Ps. xxxiii. 4, 5 ; Isa. xxvi. 7 ; xlv. 21 ; Rom. ii. 5—11 ; 1 John i. 9 ; Rev. xv. 3 ; xvi. 5-7), Compassionate, Merciful, Long-suffering (Exod.xxxiv.6; Ps. ix. 8-10 ; Lam. iii. 22, 23 ; Ezek. xxxiii. 11 , Matt, v. 45; John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 16), the Creator and Preserver of all His creatures (Gen. i. 1 ; 1 Sam. ii. 7; Ps. xxxiii. 6; xxxvii. 23-25; civ; Matt. vi. 31, 32; x. 29-31 ; Rom. xi. 36 ; Rev. iv. 11).

These are some of the many glorious Attributes which the Bible tells us belong to the One True God. All the rest are summed up in the statement that He is perfect in His Nature, His Knowledge, His Teaching, His Doings (Deut. xxxii. 4; 2 Sam. xxii. 31; Job xxxvi. 4; xxxvii 16: Ps. xviii. 30; xix. 7; Matt, v. 48).

It cannot therefore be denied that all these statements which the Bible contains in reference to God Most High and to His Most Excellent Attributes are such as our reason and conscience confirm when they hear them, because they are worthy of the Most Merciful Creator. Nor can such knowledge in reference to God have been attained by men apart from Divine inspiration (fWJp and guidance. For a perusal of the works of the wisest philosophers of old, even of those of Plato and Aristotle., will show us that not even these men ever taught any such lofty views as these about the Divine Nature. They did not clearly teach God's Unity, His Personality, His Holiness. Especially in this last matter, the doctrine of God's Holiness, the Bible differs from the teaching of all other faiths, ancient or modern.

When men who are really pious and desirous of knowing God and of doing His will prayerfully study the Bible, then the entrance of the Word of God (¿if pf) into their hearts gives them spiritual light (Ps. cxix. 105, 130), and enables them to find God (Deut. iv. 29; Jer. xxix. 13; John vii. 17), and to know His will. Fear and love of God are produced in their hearts by the power of God's Holy Spirit (Rom. iv. 5), and they receive grace to enable them to become obedient to their Maker. Their hearts are changed, they receive new spiritual birth (John i. 12, 13 ; iii. 5, 6), and through belief in Jesus Christ they become a new creation (2 Cor. v. 17). They learn to hate sin and to love righteousness, to flee from evil and cleave to goodness and godliness. For the Holy Scriptures teach us that God is Holy and Just, able to punish those who, like Pharaoh, harden their hearts against Him, but a loving, compassionate, merciful, and benevolent Father to all those who truly repent and turn from their sins to serve Him in newness of life. Hence from even the few passages of the Bible which we have referred to in this chapter, the Truth-seeker, if he prayerfully studies them, will begin to see that the Holy Scriptures really satisfy the conditions of a True Revelation. This will, please God, become still more evident to him in the following chapters.

The New Testament teaches us that a true knowledge of God can be obtained only through the teaching of God's Holy Spirit, who is always ready to aid and help us. The perfect revelation of God is given in the Lord Jesus Christ, who has Himself said, " He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father " (John xiv. 9), and in Him alone, because He alone is the Word IiS) of God.

CHAPTER III

man's original condition, his present fallen state, and his need of salvation from sin and from eternal death

He who desires to know what is his actual condition in the sight of the Most Holy God can learn this in part from his own conscience, and still more fully from the Word of God (¿if For God knows all things,

and from Him no secrets are hid. All things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do " (Heb. iv. 13). He knows not only all that we have done, but also all that we have thought and desired during all our past life. God alone can inform us with what object He has created and preserved us alive, and on what our attainment of future happiness depends. Philosophers in their books have related their own theories and speculations upon these subjects : but our reason assures us that, if God has revealed His Will to us by Prophets and Apostles, then what He has taught us in His Word (^S ) must be far more reliable than the conclusions of human limited and fallible reasonings. Therefore, in order to learn God's gracious purpose in creating mankind, and to ascertain how men have fallen into their present condition of sin and misery, we must refer to the Holy Scriptures. Hence the writer of these pages would with all courtesy entreat his honoured readers to lay aside all prejudice and to consult the Taur&t, Zabilr, and Injil, to which, as we have seen, their own Qur'4n bears such lofty testimony. In consulting the Word (pitf) of God, however, let us do so with due reverence, humility, and earnestness of heart and purpose, beseeching the Most Merciful God to grant us spiritual perception and guidance, that we may comprehend aright its meaning, and to open the eyes of our understanding, that we may discern our inward condition and the way to obtain eternal salvation, everlasting life, and abiding bliss and felicity.

If we study Gen. i. 26—ii. 25, and Eccles. vii. 29, we shall clearly perceive that God created man pure, holy, and happy. The statement that God created man in His own image, after His likeness, implies that in mind and especially in spirit there was originally such a degree of resemblance between the finite creature man and his Infinite Creator that God could in some measure make Himself known to man. Man was then free from sin in deed, and even from evil thoughts and impulses, as well as from, all infirmity of body, soul, and spirit, nor was he liable to disease or a painful death. As he then knew and loved God and desired to serve Him, man was at first happy and contented. He was also the head of all creatures to be found on the face of the earth. From the Book of Genesis we learn that God specially prepared a place for man to live in, it was in Eden (Gen. ii. 8), which was the name of the great plain in Lower Mesopotamia, on which Babel and other cities were long afterwards built.

Every man's own conscience testifies to the fact that mankind has not continued in that state of sinlessness and consequent happiness. Besides this, the history of ancient nations which for their wickedness have perished off the face of the earth, and the existence of the sin, misery, suffering and death which now bear sway over the whole face of the earth—both these facts afford abundant proof that our condition has changed very much from that in which the Most Merciful God created Adam, and in which He wished him and his children to continue. Besides this we have other evidence, for the Holy Scriptures tell us how guilty and miserable man's present condition is in God's sight (Gen. viii. 21 ; Ps. cxliii. 2 ; Rom. iii. 10-20, 23 ; 1 John i. 8).

He who is in any degree acquainted with his own heart, and knows the thoughts and desires which too often spring up there, like water gushing forth from a fountain, must admit that in very truth he is guilty in the sight of the Most Holy God, even as these verses state. Conscience forces him to acknowledge that sin and impurity have taken possession of his heart, and that he has been so full of evil impulses and unworthy passions that even from his childhood he has ever been inclined to what was wrong, and hence that his moral nature is and has been in a state of corruption. All men's inclinations are not towards the same kind of sin. Some are ambitious, others avaricious, others licentious, others cruel, others proud and cold-hearted, others false, others hypocritical, others unbelieving, others prone to more than one of these sins. But experience teaches us that no man is devoid of sin. Even the best of men confess that they have done much that they ought not to have done, and left undone much that they should have done. Thus the universal condition of mankind in all past ages and in the present is a great probf that the Bible is the Word of God. Many heathens, when they have heard it read, have felt that it so exactly described their spiritual condition that it must contain a message from the Creator Himself. Such men have therefore come for Christian teaching, saying, " He who made that Book made me."

There are some men who have experienced a change of heart, and have hence come to hate sin and love righteousness. But this change is due to the New Birth of which Christ spoke in John iii. 3, 5 : and it takes place only in those who truly believe in Him.

We have seen that the Holy Scripture informs us that Adam, when God created him, was not prone to sin, and therefore was not in the state of guilt and misery in which most of his descendants are to-day. Our reason also makes it clear to us that the commission of sin is not in accordance with God's will, for sin is the transgression of the Moral Law, which is in accordance with the Divine Nature (^li) and an expression of it. Hence it is self-contradictory to say that God wills the transgression of His Will. As, however, the sons of Adam are now engulfed in the whirlpool of Sin and wretchedness and are bound in slavery to their own carnal disposition (¿^Nf^-ilM), it is fitting to inquire how this wickedness and misery befell mankind.

Holy Scripture gives the answer to this question. It informs us that sin and its evil results come upon men through the enmity and deceitfulness of Satan, and through man's own free choice and resolve to do his own will instead of God's. Eve was deceived by Satan, and she led Adam astray. He wilfully disobeyed the commandment of his Creator: and thus, turning aside in heart and conduct from the love of the truth, he cut himself off from the fountain of life and of true happiness. This is related in Gen. iii: compare John viii. 44; Rom. v. 12, 19: 1 Tim. ii. 13> f4-

If anyone should here inquire, " How is it that God did not prevent the entrance of evil into the world ? Why did He permit Satan to tempt man and to overcome him ? Why does He still permit the Evil One to perpetuate sin and misery, discord and violence on earth ? "—he will find the subject in some measure discussed in the "Way of Life" (s^ajTJ^t). Here we content ourselves with saying that God has not fully explained this matter to us, nor has human reason been able to discover an answer which is in every respect full and satisfactory. But, however much we may wish to know the reason of God's conduct in this matter, it is not necessary for us in this world to be able to understand His doings. But it is necessary for us to recognize our own lost and miserable condition and the way of escape from it. We know, as did Abraham, that the Judge of all the earth does what is right (Gen. xviii. 25). Wise men have assured us that the presence of so many temptations in this present world, and the fact that there exists in it so much misery and sorrow and suffering caused by sin, all this renders life in this lower world peculiarly fit to train us in virtue 1 by leading us to resist and overcome temptation through God's grace, and by showing us how terrible are the consequences of sin. God Most High has given men freedom of wiil, to choose for themselves right or wrong, sin or righteousness, obedience or disobedience, freedom from the slavery of the Devil or submission to it. God has revealed His Will and His love towards us. He has shown us the right way, yet He does not compel us to turn to Him, for He desires our love, and in love, as in true Religion, there cannot be compulsion.

God Most Merciful has unmistakeably taught us in His Holy Word that it is not His Will that any man should remain^2 subject to the dominion of Satan and the slavery of Sin. God's will is that every man should become free from the chains of sin should be cleansed from the stains of guilt and impurity, and should thus attain to the spiritual condition of likeness to God from which Adam fell, so that each man may become an heir of eternal happiness. Both the Old Testament and the New agree with universal human experience in teaching that there can be no true happiness for man until he repents of his evil deeds and with true faith turns to God, becomes free from sin, and obtains God's forgiveness. Without purity of heart no one can ever see God with the inward eye (Matt. v. 8 ; Heb. xii. 14). The truly pious man must become holy because God is Holy (Lev. xix. 2 ; Matt, v. 48 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10 ; 1 John iii. 1-8). This is the teaching of the Holy Scripture : and when once we have heard this doctrine, our reason and conscience bear witness to its truth. For, as man was made in God's image and has had that image

f^1 Compare Butler's Analogy of Religion, Part I, ch. v (vol. ii, p. 91, § 16 of Bernard's edition of 1900).]

a Ezek. xviii. 23, 32 ; xxxiii. 11 ; John iii. 16; 2 Pet. iii. 9.

k

marred by sin, it is necessary that he should be formed again into a spiritual likeness to the Holy One before he can dwell with God in harmony and love and can enjoy the Divine Vision _ ¿if is^').

If in this matter we compare the doctrine of the Bible with that of the other religious books of the world, we find a great difference between them on this very point. For the books of other religions teach us nothing of God's design in creating man, nothing about the need of sanctification and purification of the human heart and spirit. They teach that purity results from ablutions of the body, that forgiveness of sins is obtained through pilgrimages or sacrifices or almsgiving. Now ablutions of the body are very suitable and desirable, but they cannot purify the heart. As Christ Himself says, it is not sufficient to cleanse the outside of the cup or platter and leave the inside defiled. "Cleanse first", He says, " the inside of the cup and^1 of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also" (Matt, xxiii. 26). Good works, too, should result from love to God and conformity to His will and gratitude to Him for pardon and mercy. But almsgiving will not persuade God to forgive us our sins, for no just judge receives a bribe to pardon a criminal. The value of almsgiving and al! other good works depends in God's sight on the motive with which they are undertaken, and no one can conceal his motives from Him who searches men's hearts.

In order that we may know God's Will and be able to obey Him, God Most High has given us much teaching both in the Old Testament and in the New. He has thus shown what we should do and what we should avoid. Hence, too, we find the Moral Law given in various short and simple enactments in different parts of the Bible. In the Taurat are given the Ten Commandments (Exod. xx. 1-17; Deut. v. 6-21). In later days the Prophet Micah tells us that God's law as to man's duty might be summed up thus : " He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ?" (Micah vi. 8). Ignorant people often assert that Christians have no law (i*^) containing commands and prohibitions: but the fact that the Moral Law given in the Old Testament is binding upon us is a sufficient refutation of this statement. In the New Testament we have Christ's Law (ijo^) given us in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, v, vi, vii); and, besides this, He has summed up our duty for us in Mark xii. 28-31 and Luke vi. 31. Hence we see that He lays down general principles to guide us under all circumstances, instead of endeavouring, like all other lawgivers, to give particular directions for every circumstance that can arise. Whoever will attentively read Rom. xii, xiv. 1-8 ; 1 Cor. xiii; Eph. v. 1-21 ; Col. iii. i-iv. 1 will perceive how high and holy a Way has been appointed for Christians to walk in. We are told to wash our hearts before praying, not merely our hands; not to make a pilgrimage once in our lives,

but to be always strangers and pilgrims on earth, having no continuing city here, but ever seeking the one which is to come, and always drawing nearer to God in holiness ; not to pray five or seven times a day but to " pray without ceasing " (1 Thess. v. 17), i.e. so to live that we may always be in spiritual communion with God ; not to offer sacrifices of dead animals, as did the Jews, but ourselves to be "living sacrifices, holy, acceptable to God" (Rom. xii. 1, 2; 1 Pet. ii. 5). From this it will be evident that the precepts of the New Testament, even more than those of the Old, are in full accordance with the glorious Attributes of the Holy and Most Merciful Lord, because they enjoin and conduce to purity of heart and of life. It will also be clear that without these things all merely external rites are valueless in God's sight, and cannot produce righteousness or lead to justification. Therefore the precepts of the Gospel stand far above the ordinances of every other religion, because they are specially fitted

k 2

to effect sanctification of heart and life. They must therefore be accepted, not as the commandments of men, like those of all other religions except the Jewish, but as those of God Himself. All the precepts of the Gospel are summed up in the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matt. xxii. 37-39). These words are a slightly amplified quotation from the Taurit (Deut. vi. 5 ; x. 12 ; xxx. 6 ; Lev. xix. 18). They thus show how completely the Old Testament and the New agree in their teaching as to what God demands, and what is the way to walk in. God requires of us that our hearts should be so filled with love towards God, who has first loved us, that all the powers of our bodies, souls, spirits and minds, during every hour and minute of our lives, may be gladly spent in endeavouring to serve and please Him : and that, as we seek our own profit and good, so we should with heart and soul seek to do good to our neighbours. We should also remember that even our enemies are, in God's sight, our neighbours (Luke x. 25-37). By so acting we shall be obeying Christ's Golden Rule, " All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them " (Matt. vii. 12).

Inasmuch as these precepts of the Bible unite man in love both to his Creator and to the whole of Adam's sons, and conduce to purity of heart and freedom from selfishness, they lead to happiness here and hereafter. They also agree with the Moral Law which God has inscribed upon the tablets of each man's heart and conscience. This is an evident proof that the teachings of the Bible are from the Creator of mankind and of the world. Hence its inspiration (¡.l+N) is clearer than the sun. Men who have not yet received the Holy Scriptures are not without a Law (¿jo^.), therefore, for God has placed this Moral Law in their hearts. Hence all men are responsible to God for their disobedience to what they themselves know to be right and incumbent upon them. The heathen are held accountable under this law, and they too must in some measure learn from their own consciences that, since they have not kept the law written in their hearts, they are sinners in God's sight and stand in need of a Saviour. The advantage of having received the Word of God, i.e. the BibLe, is that the Moral Law within receives fresh testimony to its Divine origin from it. Moreover, men who accept the Holy Scriptures have their judgement enlightened to know their duty better, and are encouraged to seek help from God to do it

Holy Scripture also teaches us that to know what is right will not justify, but condemn us, unless we perform our duty (Matt. vii. 21-27 > Luke x. 25-28 ; John xiii. 17; Rom. ii. 13). It states too that justice demands that there be no defect whatever in our obedience to the Divine commands, which clearly require perfection of character and conduct (Matt. v. 48). If any man were to obey the Divine Law in every point but one, he would, in that one point, be a transgressor (Jas. ii. 10,11; Gal. iii. 10-12). So it is also with human law. The law in every civilized land forbids murder and theft. If a man is not a murderer, and steals only once, he is a malefactor, and is liable to punishment. Of Adam only one sin is mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, yet that one sin brought condemnation and death. God's favour cannot be obtained by the observance of only certain parts of His Law. He who desires to please Him, and by his own acts to be justified in God's sight, must strictly and without a single failure or omission keep the whole of God's law. Transgression of the least commandment will render him a sinner, and liable to punishment and alienation from God Most High.

But is there any man who has, day and night, during all his life, so perfectly obeyed God's law that he has never in any degree departed from it ? Can anyone be found who has always loved God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind, and who has

loved his neighbour as himself (Matt. xxii. 37-39) ? Or is there any person who in his whole life has never committed a sinful act, or spoken a word displeasing to God, or cherished in his heart a wrong thought or evil desire ? (See Job iv. 18, 19; xxv. 4, 5, 6 ; Ps. cxliii. 2 ; Rom. iii. 20.) Only one such man has ever lived, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Seeing then that all human beings except Christ are found guilty by the testimony of our own conscience and by that of the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scripture, is it not most fitting that we should with true penitence of heart confess before our Creator: " O Lord of Lords, most Holy and Righteous God, the purity which Thou requirest is not in us : we are deserving, O Lord, of Thy wrath and of eternal death " ?

That God does punish sinners is clearly taught, in the first place, by our experience, secondly by our Conscience, and thirdly by the Word ) of God in such passages as Ezek. xviii. 20; Matt. xii. 36 ; xxv. 41; Rom. i. 8 ; ii. 8, 9; Col. iii. 25; 2 Thess. i. 9. Some persons imagine that God will pardon transgressors without punishing them, because of His boundless Mercy. But this is morally impossible, unless in some way the requirements of His righteous Law should be satisfied. Otherwise His Justice would not be perfect, nor would He be acting in accordance with what He has Himself said. It is true that God's love and mercy are infinite, but so are also His justice and His holiness. Therefore wicked doers can never be pleasing in His sight, for He hates all sin.

Moreover, sin is in itself a curse and a punishment to the transgressor. No wicked man is happy, can be happy, either in this life or in the next. A man whose soul, is filled with lust, for instance, does not know what true happiness is, even here. Sin degrades man's nature, rendering men cruel, cowardly, selfish, base, and removing them far in spirit from the Most Holy God, in whose presence there is fullness of joy. " Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of

sin" (John viii. 34): and the most awful punishment he can receive is the condition of eternal sinfulness, which is the state of those who finally choose darkness for light, evil for good, Satan for God (John iii. 19; Rev. xxii. 11).

It is also in accordance with God's attribute of Love that He should not permit man to sin without punishment. For if men knew that God would not punish the guilty, they would day by day sink more and more deeply into the whirlpool of sin, and thus become more and more wretched themselves and a cause of misery to others. It is clear also that transgression of God's Law must bring punishment; for if not, why should the Moral Law exist, and be written not only in Holy Scripture but also in men's hearts ? No man of understanding can fancy that rebels and loyal servants of God will alike be acceptable to Him and receive the same treatment at His hands.

As all men but One have fallen into sin, all deserve punishment. None of us sinful men have in ourselves power to please God, to atone for our sins, and to obtain pardon and reconciliation with God Most High. We need not merely a way of escape from th,e punishment of our sins, but, still more, a means of escape from the power and the love of sin. Punishment is a good thing for the sinner, and it often leads him to repentance. Hence sin always brings punishment. But from the eternal consequences of sin from being for eve^shut out from God's presence and banished from the love and the care of our Heavenly Father, from becoming conformed in heart and mind to the likeness of Satan himself, we need to find a way of escape. Else it would have been well for us if we had never been created.

How are we to find this way of escape ? If man in his present fallen condition cannot fulfil God's perfect Law, how can he atone for his past sins, how can he become reconciled to God ? It is clear that his good works possess no merit, because God will not accept a gift from defiled hands, and still less from a sinful heart. Not only man's deeds but his words also and his very thoughts are defiled with sin. How is it possible for us, who have not even performed our own duty to God and to our neighbour, to acquire, by doing more than our duty, such an amount of merit as will avail as a satisfaction for our sins ? This, of course, is impossible. If we could fancy the existence of a man who, during his whole life, had never transgressed God's commandments, then such a person would thereby have done nothing more than his duty (Luke xvii. 10). Even such a man could not claim to have laid up a store of merit for himself or for other men.

The Holy Scriptures teach us that God's Law requires of us such perfect devotion (Matt. xxii. 36-40) that man cannot, when he has fallen short of it, recover what he has lost. There are some, men who proudly and ignorantly assert that they have performed more worship and service than God demands of them. Yet the folly of such statements is manifest. In spite of their boasting, such men can never by any means assure themselves that they are justified in God's sight. They often in their hearts feel most painful doubts about their state after death. They often live in fear of death and die in great mental agony. As an instance of this we quote what Ibn Khallik&n says of Abft 'Imr&n Ibr&him ibn Yazld. He was " one of the famous Imlms and a Tdbi'i". "When death came upon him, he feared with a violent fear . . . Accordingly he said, ' What danger is greater than that in which I am ? I am awaiting a messenger who will come upon me from my Lord, either with Paradise or with Hell fire.'" He then swore that he would far rather that his soul should flutter in his throat^1 until the resurrection-day than

_ »-» lil C. jjacl Jaa. JUi . . . UjX^. Icj^. iliji] ijyi» lOj 1 ^ ^ ^ Oj iiiX ci ^ ^ ^ ¿¿I

JuJiH ^ Jl jU. j. Ibn Kballikan's WafayStu'l A'y&n, vol. i, p. 2, published by Aq& Mirza 'Alt Akbar in Persia.

that he should die. This was because of his dread of what was to happen to him after death.

Nor will repentance itself suffice to blot out our transgressions. It is most befitting that we should truly repent of our sins; but we cannot by repentance alone undo the evil which we have done. Hence repentance is not enough to save us. The transgression of merely human laws cannot be atoned for in this way. If a thief or a murderer tells the judge that he has repented, will the judge be acting justly in setting him free ? That would be contrary to our innate idea of justice. But this conception of justice is part of the Moral Law which God has written in our hearts, therefore it must be right. And often men are so hardhearted that they cannot repent, even if they would.

Thus we have seen there is no possibility of our saving ourselves, by our works, either from the punishment of our sins or from their other consequences. Still less can we save ourselves from the love and the power of sin and obtain reconciliation with God Most High through any merits of our own. Hence, if there is no Saviour who can atone for our sins, we must for ever remain alienated from God, and can never attain that eternal happiness, the desire for which God has implanted in every heart.

It has been shown that, if there be a Saviour who can make Atonement and can render sinners free from sin and pure in the sight of the just and holy God, that Saviour cannot be merely a man, born like other men, inheriting Adam's corrupt nature, and himself a sinner. No sinner can save sinners. As all men who are merely men are sinners, none of them can atone for the rest. In the ZabOr we are told that " None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (Ps. xlix. 7), even to save him from the death of the body. How much more true is it therefore that none of us can redeem another from eternal death!

Yet if there be a Saviour, He must be a man, for otherwise He cannot represent us and be one of us, the Head of the human race, and we cannot feel convinced that He sympathizes with us, understands us, loves us. He must therefore both be higher in nature and dignity than are the men whom He saves, and yet He must share their nature in some way. He must be free from sin, and must render perfect obedience to all the Law of God. This is what Reason itself tells us must be the case, if there be a Saviour for men. If there be no such Saviour, then mankind is lost, has no hope, and can never attain to the state of holiness and happiness for which all men naturally yearn.

But is there such a Saviour to be found ? When we turn to the Bible we find that there is : that the Old Testament contains the promise of His coming, and the New Testament tells us how He came. . Prophets and Apostles have alike borne witness to Him, the true and only Saviour from sin, the Saviour who has offered to God a perfect propitiation and atonement for the sins of the whole world (i John ii. i, 2), and who is thus able to obtain pardon for transgressors. This Saviour is the Lord Jesus Christ, who by His greatness and holiness, His perfect obedience even unto death, has borne the sin of the world, and has become the one Mediator for all men. He has made Atonement and has reconciled man to the Holy and Righteous God, having obtained eternal salvation for all who truly believe in Him. Therefore He offers to all men forgiveness of sin and eternal joy.

Hence with thankful hearts we join our voice with the Apostle's and say: " Unto the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, be honour and

Ílory for ever and ever" (1 Tim. i. 17). For He, the .iving, the Loving, the Most Merciful God, has, of His infinite love and mercy, offered to us guilty sinners so great a redemption and such a glorious salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER IV

THE WAY IN WHICH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HAS WROUGHT OUT SALVATION FOR ALL MEN

Now, invoking and relying upon the guidance and blessing of Almighty God, we proceed to explain in what manner the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the teaching of both the Old Testament and the New, has wrought out salvation for mankind. There may be much in God's marvellous plan of salvation which may transcend our finite reason, and it is clear that we cannot know anything of His Divine Purpose except what He has been pleased to reveal to us. Yet the fact that He has given us reason shows us that He wishes us to use it to His glory. And, as He has graciously disclosed to us the method of salvation, it is evident that He wishes us to reflect upon it with reverence and to understand it (i Thess. v. 21), as far as finite creatures can. Nor does our salvation depend upon the keenness of our intellect, but upon the reality of our faith in the Saviour of the world.

That the Most High, out of the fullness of His love and mercy, has vouchsafed to provide salvation for .sinners through the Lord Jesus Christ is clearly taught in the New Testament (for instance in Luke xix. xo; John iii. 16; 2 Cor. v. 19, 21 ; 1 Tim. i. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 21-24; i John ii. 12; iv. 9, 10). The fact that this way of salvation has thus been provided is thus evident. We must now endeavour to explain how salvation can be obtained through Christ, and how it is that such high titles are given Him in these verses and elsewhere. We shall thus in some measure understand His true Nature and Dignity, and learn how He satisfies the conditions mentioned at the end of Chapter III.

The Holy Scriptures inform us that God, in His boundless love and limitless mercy, had from the foundation of the world decided on this way of salvation (Eph. iii. ii ; i Pet. i. 18-21; Rev. xiii. 8). Hence by the lips of His Prophets in the Old Testament He declared the tribe and family from which the Saviour should spring, the time and manner of His appearance among men, His Nature and rank, and the manner in which He would accomplish His great and merciful work of redemption. Thus in the ages before His blessed Advent those who knew of these Divine Promises rejoiced in faith and looked forward to the great salvation then to be manifested. Adam, the father of all men, was informed by God concerning the coming Saviour. He was told that the promised Redeemer would be so mighty that He would crush the Serpent's head, that is to say, would overcome Satan and deliver mankind from his thraldom and from sin (Gen. iii. 14, 15).

We have already seen that God Most High promised Abraham that through his seed blessing should come upon all the nations of the earth (Gen. xxii. 18). And the New Testament clearly shows that the person thus indicated was the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. iii. 16).

Again, God promised through Moses that this Saviour would be a great Prophet who would arise among the Children of Israel (in accordance with Gen. xvii. 19, 21, and Gen. xxviii. 14), and would teach the people the way and will of God (Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19). That the Prophet thus spoken of was Christ was made plain by a voice from heaven commanding men to hear Him (Matt. xvii. 5 ; Mark ix. 7), just as God had told Moses that men must hear the promised Prophet, under penalty of severe punishment.

The Divine message came also to David, declaring that the Saviour would be of his posterity, and that His Kingdom would have no end (2 Sam. vii. 16 ; Ps. lxxxix. 3,4, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37 ; Isa. ix. 6, 7 ; xi. 1 ; Jer. xxiii.

5. 6; xxxiii. 15, 16, 17, 20, 2i, 25, 26: compare John xii. 34).

In Gen. xlix. 10, we are told that the kingdom would not finally depart from Judah until Shiloh came, this being one of the titles of the promised Messiah.

The Lord Jesus Christ was born of the seed of David (Matt. i. 1 ; Acts ii. 30 ; xiii. 22, 23 ; Rom. i. 3) about four or five years before the time when the Christian era began. Here we must explain that the beginning of the Christian era was erroneously fixed in accordance with the calculations of a monk called Dionysius the Little in the reign of the Emperor Justinian. He made a mistake of a few years, but it is convenient to retain the usual reckoning. Herod the Great, King of the Jews, died 4 b.c., when Christ was less than two years old (compare Matt. ii. 16), and then the kingdom was divided into four parts. Herod's son Archelaus was made ruler of only one of these parts, Judaea : but about a. d. 6 he was deposed by the Romans and banished. Judaea then became a province of the Roman Empire, instead of a separate kingdom subject to Rome. From that time to this the Jews have never had a king of their own. That they had none, that the sceptre had departed from Judah according to Jacob's prediction, they themselves confessed at the time of Christ's Crucifixion, when they said," We have no king but Caesar" (John xix. 15). Therefore it was clear that the promised Messiah had come.

The place where Christ should be born was mentioned beforehand by the prophet Micah (Micah v. 2), and this passage also taught that he would be no mere man, by describing Him as one " whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting". The fulfilment of the prophecy is related in Matt. ii. 1, 5, 6. That He should be born of a Virgin was implied in Gen. iii. 15, and more clearly in Isa. vii. 14, and this was fulfilled (Matt. i. 18-25 ! Luke »• 26-38), as the Qur'&n also admits (Sfirahs xxi. 91 ; lxvi. 12). With reference to His teaching, humiliation, suffering, death, and the

Atonement which He would make for the redemption of mankind, there are very many prophecies in the Old Testament, among the principal of which are Isa. xlii. 1-9; lxi. 1-3 (compare Luke iv. 17-21); lii. 13-15 and liii; Ps. xxii. The time at which He should be put to death is clearly stated in the prophecy of Daniel (ch. ix. 24-26). For the decree of King Artaxerxes Longimanus (^jLjlif — o^y j-^ij) of Persia

to restore and to build Jerusalem was promulgated in the seventh year of that king's reign (Ezra vii. 1, 7), that is to say, in 458 b.c. If from that date we reckon seventy weeks of years (Dan. ix. 24), or 490 years, we reach a.d. 32. In Dan. ix. 25 and 26 we are told that the Messiah would be cut off between 483 and 490 years from Artaxerxes' decree, that is between a.d. 25 and a.d. 32. This prophecy was fulfilled, for He was crucified between those dates, probably in a.d. 29 or 30. The predicted destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem (Dan. ix. 26, 27) occurred about forty years later, in a.d. 70, when Titus, son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, destroyed both city and Temple, as Josephus and other historians relate, in accordance with Christ's predictions (Matt. xxiv. 1-28; Mark xiii. 1-23 ; Luke xxi. 5-24). The " tribulation " of those days (Mark xiii. 24) has not yet come to an end, for the Jews are still scattered everywhere without a country, and our Muslim brethren know the tribulation which the Jews still endure not only throughout all the Muhammadan world, but also in such countries as Russia. Nor are the " times of the Gentiles " fulfilled as yet (Luke xxi. 24), since Gentiles still hold possession of Jerusalem.

There are in the books of the Prophets numerous passages which predict such matters as the Resurrection of Christ, His session on God's right hand, His Ascension into the Heavens. Such, for example, are Ps. xvi. 10 (compare Acts ii. 22-36); Ps. ex. 1 ; Dan. vii. 13, 14. That His Kingdom was to be established at the time when the " fourth kingdom " of Dan. vii. 23, i. e. the Roman Empire, still held sway is predicted in Dan. ii.

34. 35. 44. 45 v»- 7. 9. i3> H> 2 3, 27. The four Kingdoms or Empires were the Babylonian, the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman (Dan. ii. 37-45 ; viii. 20, 21).

When the Lord Jesus Christ was about thirty years of age (Luke iii. 23), He began to proclaim the Good News (».»¿I _ i^LLfJl), as the Gospels (j^-biil) inform us. He went about doing good: He wrought many miracles, healed the sick, cast out devils, opened the eyes of the blind, the ears of the deaf, cleansed lepers, and enabled the lame to walk, in accordance with the predictions of the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah (Isa.xxxii. 1-5 ; xxxv. 3-6 ; xlii. 1-7 ; Ixi. 1, 2 : compare Matt. xi. 4, 5 ; xii. 17-21 ; xxi.[1]14). Yet, though He possessed and exercised such great power, He never wrought a miracle for His own advantage, or to punish His enemies. He lived in poverty and lowliness (Matt. viii. 20), and did not seek any earthly honour and glory. He refused to let people make Him an earthly monarch (John vi. 15). And so blameless were His actions, so evident to all men was the holiness of His life and conduct, that He could say to His adversaries,<: Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" (John viii. 46). Thus were the prophecies regarding His first Advent and His conduct accomplished.

The Lord Jesus Christ chose out twelve Apostles from among the Israelites, and trained them, teaching them the truth which He wished them to teach others. The doctrine upon which all else was based was that of His Divine Sonship, and He declared that on this doctrine as on a rock He would build His Church (Matt. xvi. 13-18).

When His Apostles had thus learnt that He was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, the Lord Jesus began to teach them the next great lesson, i. e. that He must be crucified and rise again for the salvation of mankind (Matt. xvi. 21; Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22). When the time of His decease drew nigh, Christ still more clearly informed His disciples of the nature of the sufferings which He was about to undergo (Luke xviii. 31-34). On another occasion He told them plainly that He would endure all these sufferings of His own will and because of His great love for mankind, in order that He might give new and eternal life to men (John vi. 51; x. 11-18), if they chose to accept this free gift of God (Rom. vi. 23).

Thus, because of His love towards the children of men, and in order to save them from their sins, He permitted the Jews to seize Him, to mock and buffet Him, and to deliver Him up into the hands of the Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, to be scourged and crucified (Matt. xxvi. 47-xxvii. 56 ; Markxiv. 43-xv. 41; Lukexxii.47~xxiii. 49; John xviii. i-xix. 37). Thus was fulfilled what had been prophesied regarding Him by David (Ps. xxii) and Isaiah (lii. 13-liii. 12), many hundreds of years beforehand.

The Lord Jesus Christ was executed as if He had been a criminal, though His judge, Pilate, acknowledged Him to be innocent of any crime (Matt, xxvii. 24). It was customary among the Jews at that time to cast the bodies of criminals into a place called the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, outside the walls of Jerusalem. There they were either burnt or left to be devoured by jackals and worms. Yet in the case of Jesus this did not take place, for His sacred Body was handed over to Joseph of Arimathaea, a secret disciple, a man of wealth and of high rank, who buried it in his own new tomb (Matt, xxvii. 57-61; Markxv. 42-47; Luke xxiii. 50-56; John xix. 37-42). This all took place in exact accord with the prophecy in Isa. liii. 9, where it is said that, though His burial was appointed to be with wicked men, yet at His death He should be " with the rich ".

As Christ had beforehand told His disciples that He would rise again from the dead on the third day (Matt, xvi. 21 ; xvii. 23 ; xx. 19 ; Luke ix. 22 ; xviii. 33 ; xxiv.

7, 46), so it Game to pass (Matt, xxviii. 1-10 ; Mark xvi. 1-8; Luke xxiv. 1-43; John xx ; 1 Cor. xv. 4). This also took place in accordance with David's prophecy (Ps. xvi. 9, 10). After His Resurrection He appeared several times to His disciples during the period of forty days (Acts i. 3), and taught them how completely what had happened to Him had fulfilled the prophecies contained in the Old Testament, and what the object of His Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection really was (Luke xxiv. 27, 44-49). He then gave them the commission to make all nations His disciples (Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Acts i. 8). After this He ascended before their eyes into the Heavens (Luke xxiv. 50, 51 ; Acts i. 9), leaving them the promise of His triumphal return to reign for ever and ever, as predicted by Daniel (Dan. vii. 13, 14, 27), and to fill the earth with the knowledge of God (Isa. xi. 1-9). See Matt. xxiv. 30, 31 ; xxv. 31-46; Mark xiii. 26 ; Luke xxi. 27 ; John xiv. 1-3 ; Acts i. 11 ; Rev. i. 7 ; xx. 1 i-xxi. 8.

Since all the promises which God had long beforehand given by the mouth of His prophets in the Old Testament with reference to the first Advent of the Promised Messiah and Saviour of the world, telling the time of His appearing, His work, and the Atonement which He was to make, have thus been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, it is clear that He is in truth the Saviour to whom the Prophets bore witness and in whom Abraham believed (John viii. 56). Let it not be overlooked that the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah is a most convincing proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament. For who, without Divine Inspiration could foretell the future in all

these particulars many hundreds of years before these events happened ? That these things were truly prophesied of is clear, because the prophecies are still found in the Hebrew Old Testament, which is in the hands of the Jews as well as of the Christians. The Jews have rejected Christ, yet they have never dared to erase or alter a single word of these prophecies,

L

though their unbelief and hardness of heart are so sternly condemned thereby.

We have already seen that the Promised Messiah's Nature and dignity are clearly set" forth even in the Old Testament; for instance in Ps. ii. 7 ; xlv. 6 ; lxxii; ex. 1; Isa. vi. 1 -10 (compare John xii. 40, 41) ; Isa. ix. 6, 7 ; xxv. 7-9; xl. 10, 11; Jer. xxxiii. 16 ; Micah v. 2 ; Mai. iii. 1 ; iv. 2, and many other passages. From the fact that His " goings forth are from of old, from everlasting" (Micah v. 2), we can understand how true was His statement, " Before Abraham was, I am" (John viii. 58), in which He used of Himself the special and peculiar name of God (Exod. iii. 14). Hence we learn that it was He who called Abraham out of Babylonia, who gave Israel the Taur&t, and who sent the Prophets. The New Testament therefore gives Him no higher titles than does the Old. Both agree in what they testify regarding His Nature and dignity. (Compare Matt. iii. 16, 17; xvi. 15, 16, 17; xvii. 1-8; xxvi. 63, 64; xxviii. 18; Luke i. 32, 35; Johni. 1-3,9-18; v. 17-29; viii. 23-29, 42, 56-58 ; ix. 35-37; x. 27-38; xiv. 9-11 ; xvi. 12-15, 28; xvii. 5, 21; Col. i. 12-23; Phil. ii. 5-11 ; Heb. i; Rev. i. 5-18; xxi. 6-8 ; xxii. 13, 16.) When Muslims reject the invitation to accept Christ as their Saviour (John v. 40), one reason why they do so is because they refuse to believe what He said of Himself and what the earlier Prophets said of Him.

We must not forget that it would have been impossible for Christ to save the world from sin and from hatred towards God, were He a mere creature, even the highest of all creatures. Hence salvation depends upon perfect trust in Him, as being what He claimed to be and what the Holy Scriptures of both the Old Testament and the New testify that He was. Thus we see that belief in His Deity is no corruption of the Christian faith, but is of the very essence of all true religion. For, were He a creature, His goodness and His sufferings could be no proof of God's love to man.

These things would rather render it difficult to believe in the love and mercy of God Most High, if He caused the highest and best of His creatures to suffer such pain and sorrow. But when we accept the teaching of the Bible, and recognize that " God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. v. 19), and perceive that He is One with His Father (John x. 30), then we begin in some measure to understand that, if the doctrine of the Holy Trinity^1 be true, God Most High is merciful, and does care for us. Then we find that the cream of the Gospel (¿,Li-Jl) and the essence of the whole Bible is contained in John iii. 16, and that this appeals to our hearts and draws them in love and devotion to God, who has first loved us (1 John iv. 9).

The fact that in the former of these two verses (John iii. 16) the title " Son of God " is given

to Christ has been a great stumbling-block to Muslims, because they think that this is absolutely contradicted by SOrah cxii. But in reality this is largely due to a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine. Let it be frankly stated that, in the sense in which the Qur'&n uses the words of that Sfirah, they are undoubtedly true, and can be employed by all Christians.2 In that Stirah the Qur'&n is denouncing and teaching men to repudiate as blasphemous all such carnal ideas of generation as were entertained by the heathen in all lands. Even the Arabs in the Times of Ignorance attributed daughters^3 to God Most High in this blasphemous sense. But Christians have never held any doctrine in the slightest degree similar to that. Hence it is that we do not use the expression Waladu'lldh (¿TiJ>')> but call the Lord Jesus Christ Ibntillah (jof^ji). The difference between the two expressions is very

1 See Chapter V of this Second Part.

® As can also those of Sfirah vi. 101: "The Originator of the heavens and of the earth, how should He have a child (aJj) ? and He had not a female friend, and He hath created everything."

5 SQrahs vi. 100; xvi. 59.

l 2

great, for the word ibn is suitable for use in a metaphorical sense, which sense is needed in the title " Son of God". But walad is not used metaphorically. Christian writers who lived hundreds of years before the Hijrah repeatedly denounced the carnal ideas of the heathen, and pointed out in what an entirely different sense the title of Ibmtllah, is given to Christ. For instance, Lactantius, writing about a.d. 306, more than 300 years before the Hijrah, says: "He^1 who hears the words ' Son of God' spoken must not conceive in his mind such great wickedness as to fancy that God procreated through marriage and union with any female, —a thing which is not done except by an animal possessed of a body and subject to death. But since God is alone, with whom could He unite ? or, since He was of such great might as to be able to accomplish whatever He wished, He certainly had no need of the comradeship of another for the purpose of creating."

The fact should be noted that, when philosophical language is used in the Gospel, our Lord Jesus Christ is styled " The Word of God" (¿fi^), as in John i. 1,14; Rev. xix. 13 (compare the title " Word of Life" in 1 John i. 1). The other title, Ibnullah,, has really the same meaning, but it is used for two special reasons : (1) for the benefit of simple people, who are the great majority of the human race, and who could not understand the former phrase, and (2) because it enables us to realize the personality of the Word of God (¿f 1;1S } and the love which exists between the Divine Hypostases (j^iUiil) of the Holy Trinity (compare John xv. 9,

10 ; xvii. 23, 26). Neither of these latter facts could be expressed by the title " The Word of God ". It is true that no human vocables (jeujl) can be well suited

1 " Qui audit Dei Filium dici, non debet tantum nefas mente con- cipere ut existimet ex connubio ac permistione feminae alicuius Deum procreasse, quod non facit nisi animal corporale mortique subiectum. Deus autem, quum solus sit, cui permiscere se potuit ? aut, quum esset tantae potestatis ut quidquid vellet efficeret, utique ad creandum societate alterius non indigebat " (Divinae Institutiones, Bk. iv, ch. 8).

to express at all fully and correctly the realities of the Divine Nature but we cannot be wrong in employing the terms used in the Holy Scriptures by men who wrote under Divine Guidance and Inspiration (j.1^). The relation which subsists between the Hypostases in the Divine Unity infinitely transcends human language and thou'ght; yet we can in some measure understand something of it. The limitless ocean cannot be contained in a cup, yet enough of it can be held in such a vessel to give us some idea of its nature. Both titles, " The Word of God" and " The Son of God ", are used in the New Testament with the same meaning; i. e. they express the fact of Christ's essential Deity, His oneness with the Father (John x. 30). Only by believing what Christ Himself says on this point can we at all understand the doctrine of the Atonement and the way of salvation through Christ, who tells us that only through Him can men come to God the Father (John xiv. 6 : compare Acts iv. 12).

The Old Testament and the New not only agree in ascribing to Christ the attributes of Deity, but they also denote His Divine Nature by clearly and plainly calling Him God : for example, in Ps. xlv. 6, 7 ; Isa. ix. 6 ; John xx. 28, 29 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; Heb. i. 8 ; 1 John v. 20. Whoever will carefully and prayerfully study such passages as these will perceive that these exalted titles are given to Christ, not from exaggeration or courtesy, but because they express a truth essentially important for men to know.

The thoughtful Muslim is aware that the Qur'&n agrees with the New Testament in calling Christ " the Word of God" (^luT).[1] We shall deal with this more fully, if it please God, when we come to inquire into the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity.2 Here

1 In Sfirah iv. 169, it is evident that ill 15 equals <5)1 L^S:

o-c I c,

compare Sftrah xix. 35, where He is called JLsJ! Jji.

we call attention to the matter, in order to remove from the eyes of our honoured readers any shadow of the veil of prejudice which so often prevents men from seeing the light of God's truth. Every true Muslim must admit that those matters in which the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'in, all three Books, agree must be true. They agree with one another on several points, among which are the Unity of God and the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (¿f i^T).

And the Word of God, that Word who was in the beginning with God, through which Word of God all created things came into existence (John i. 1-3), became incarnate and for a time tabernacled among men (John i. 14; Phil. ii. 5-11). He ate and drank, slept and awoke, shared human sorrow and human joy, was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. iv. 15; compare Heb. vii. 26; 1 Pet. ii. 21-25). That He was a real man, possessed of body, soul, and spirit, is clear from the whole of the Four Gospels. This too He taught by so frequently speaking of Himself as the Son of Man, a title which, besides teaching us His perfect humanity, also recalls to our memory what was prophesied of Him in Gen. iii. 15, and Dan. vii. 13. Moreover, as Saviour of Mankind and Mediator between men and God, and as Himself the Perfect and Sinless Man, He prayed to God His Father, and did many other things which properly belong to human nature. But He was also- Divine, and He asserts His Deity when He calls God His Father, telling us of His subordination as a son to His Father and His Divine Mission in such words as these : " I am come down from Heaven, not to do Mine own will', but the will of Him that sent Me" (John vi. 38): "The Father which sent me, He hath given Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak " (John xii. 49); " The Father is greater than I " (John xiv. 28). Yet He prevents all danger of our associating partners with God by teaching so emphatically the Unity of

God (Mark xii. 29 ; John xvii. 3) and His own Oneness with God (John x. 30; xvii. 21). This Word of God (¿if U-lT), the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, " bore our griefs and carried our sorrows": " He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed (Isa. liii. 4, 5). Being by Nature (cJi) the Word of God, He prided not Himself upon His Divine Exaltation, but laid aside His glory that He had with His Father before the world came into existence (John xvii. 5) by " taking the form of a servant being made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave unto Him the Name which is above every name ; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father " (Phil. ii. 7-11).

If anyone inquire, " How is it possible for the Divine Nature to be united with human nature ?" we reply by asking, " How is it possible for spirit and flesh, the enduring (^LJ\) and the transient (^UJl) to be united with one another in man ?" Whatever the Almighty God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, may in His infinite Wisdom will, He is also able to accomplish. Moreover, the Gospel informs us that the relation between the humanity of Christ and His Divine Nature is such that the humanity is neither changed into Deity nor is the Deity confounded with the humanity. It is true that this peculiar relationship is incomprehensible to our limited human intellect, and can be known only through being revealed in God's Holy Word Yet it is clear that this union of

the Divine and the human nature in Christ took place in order that the eternal purpose of the Glorious God might be accomplished. This gracious purpose was that mankind should be saved from destruction, freed from sin and from the slavery and tyranny of Satan, reconciled to God, and might thus enjoy the bliss of a holy and happy eternity in His presence. Having redeemed by His own blood men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev. v. 9), Christ has become to us, by the holy and unselfish life which He lived on earth, an example of pure and holy living, and has left us this example that we might follow His steps (John xiii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 21).

Some men often ask us, " Could not God Most High have saved men from hell fire by the mere exercise of His Almighty Will, and have shown mercy on those whom He willed to save without any such ' Plan of Salvation' as that which Christians say is taught in the Bible ? Is it not sufficient for Him to say, ' Be,' that every purpose of His may be accomplished ?"

In reply we must first point out that the question arises from a total misunderstanding of man's nature, condition, and spiritual needs, and also from failing to comprehend the great fact that God is Holy. Sin is not only in itself contrary to and hateful to the Divine Nature, but it is also ruinous and destructive to the true, original, spiritual nature of man made in God's likeness (Gen. i. 26, 27). Hence Sin is absolutely prohibitive of the possibility of man's ever enjoying eternal happiness, until he be entirely freed from it. To refrain from casting sinners into hell fire would be easy : but in what manner can man's heart and mind, conscience and thought, be cleansed from the gnawing leprosy of sin already committed and the yearning to commit more sin ? Sin is the worst form of leprosy, for it is leprosy of the spirit. Death frees a man from bodily leprosy, but it cannot free him from spiritual leprosy. Can a spiritual leper enjoy eternal life ? Does not the vileness and pollution of the state of living death in which he exists render him miserable, hateful to himself and to all others, and most of all to God, who is Holy and who hates sin ? The Taurat of Moses forbade a man whose body was leprous to enter into the camp of the Israelites (Lev. xiii. 45, 46) and associate with his fellows. How much less possible is it that the man whose heart and spirit are smitten with the pollution of the spiritual leprosy of sin should enter Paradise and be permitted to enjoy the meeting with his Lord, the Lord of the worlds, the Holy God ! Hence it is written : " There shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they which are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Rev. xxi. 27). Even leprosy of the body cannot be healed by the leper himself, nor by any human physician. Christ healed it, and He can heal the leprosy of the spirit also. But He never healed bodily leprosy against the will of the leper, and He will not heal spiritual leprosy by force and against the sinner's will. If a man, not content with indulging in licentiousness in this lower world, is so defiled in his spirit that his highest idea of happiness in the next world is to be permitted unlimited indulgence in such vileness in Paradise to all eternity, he is a spiritual leper. Christ can heal that leprosy: none but Christ can. But Christ will not cleanse the leper against his will. Only through hearty repentance and true faith in Christ can he obtain from Him healing and cleansing. He must cry with David, " Create in me a clean heart, O God ; and renew a right spirit within me " (Ps. !i. 10). To heal the leprous heart and spirit is to cleanse the thoughts and the disposition from the love of sin and to restore them to the beauty of holiness, which sin has destroyed. How is this to be done ? God always works by means. The means which the Bible tells us He has chosen for this work is to reveal Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and to manifest His love for men by bearing mens sufferings and sharing their sorrows in Christ's human nature, who died on the cross for men and through their sins, that so He might draw their^1 hearts to Him, and by so 1 See 2 Cor. v. 14.

doing might lead them to hate sin and to seek grace from Him to resist and overcome it. Thus a new nature is produced in every true believer in Christ, a clean heart is given him, and a right spirit is renewed within him. Thus the Most Merciful God makes such a man a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. v. 17).

We do not venture to say that there was ho other way in which God could save sinners from their sins : but the Bible clearly teaches that this is the one way which He has in His Wisdom chosen (Matt. i. 21 ; John xiv. 6). Nor is it possible to conceive of any method which would be more worthy of the Holy, Righteous, Most Merciful God.

As there is much misunderstanding about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement [/caraWay»?, Rom. v. ii], we must here endeavour to explain it clearly and briefly. By Atonement we mean Reconciliation between God and man. Man has fallen from the condition in which God created him, and has, first through Adam's sin and then through each man's choice of evil instead of good, lost the true and eternal life (Gen. iii. 3) which consists in the knowledge of God through Christ (John xvii. 2). The only way in which man can therefore recover from this.spiritual death is by receiving new spiritual life from God, the Giver of Life. This life is in Christ Jesus (John i. 4; v. 26; Col. iii. 4 ; 1 John v. 12), and is given to men through Him alone (Acts iv. 12). Christ Jesus unites believers to Himself through faith, thus making them branches of Himself, the true Vine (John xv. 1-6). In this way He imparts to them something of His own holy Nature and character, making them, so to speak, partakers of His own flesh and blood (John vi. 40, 47, 48, 51-58, 63). He took human nature upon Him and became man, becoming the Second Adam, the spiritual head and representative of the human race (John i. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45). By union with Him through faith (Gal. ii. 20) those who believe in Him receive authority to become sons of God (John i. 12 ; 1 John iii. 1-3 ; iv. 9) in virtue of, the new and heavenly birth which they receive from the Holy Spirit of God (John iii. 3, 5). Dying in Christ to sin, they in Him live again unto righteousness (Rom. vi. 1-11).

In order that man should be delivered from that eternal death which is the result and the punishment of sin (Gen. iii. 3 ; Ezek. xviii. 20; Rom. vi. 23), it was necessary that, as man had willingly broken God's law of righteousness (Gen. iii), he should willingly obey that holy law to the utmost. The Word of God (*iifi^), having become perfect man, did this. He was obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil. ii. 7, 8 : compare Rom. v. 19). By His precious death for us He who was free from all sin gave His life a ransom for many (Isa. liii. 5, 6; Matt, xx. 28 ; Rom. iii. 25 ; iv. 25 ; v. 8-11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24). It is not correct to say that He bore the punishment of our sins, for punishment implies guilt, and in Him was no sin (1 John iii. 5): but all His sufferings were because of our sins, and by means of those sufferings all who truly believe in Him are delivered from sin and its final and most fearful consequence, which is exclusion from God's presence and eternal death. If Christ had been merely man, by His perfect obedience even unto death He could have done nothing except save Himself, for He could not have given spiritual life unto other men. But, being perfect God as well as perfect man, He can and does give this new spiritual life to those who believe in Him (John v. 26). God is immortal, and cannot die: but the Word of God (¿it iiiT), becoming man, was able in His human nature to taste of death for every man (Heb. ii. 9). For us He died unto sin once (Rom. iv. 25 ; vi. 10), but He rose again from the dead, having conquered death and annulled it (2 Tim. i. 10), and brought life to those who are united to Him by faith (John iii. 16 ; xi. 25, 26).

As we have already said, God must hate sin because He is Holy by Nature. Sin in us can be overcome only through the manifestation of God's love^1 in Christ Jesus, whom we love because He first loved us (John iii. 16 ; 1 John iv. 19). This constraining love of Christ enables us to love Him and, by the grace of God's Holy Spirit, to live in accordance with God's holy will in some measure here, and fully beyond the grave (2 Cor. v. 14).

Through Christ's death on the cross two special benefits are offered to us : (1) deliverance from eternal death, and (2) grace to hate sin and to overcome it (Rom. vi. 5-11; Gal. ii. 20; vi. 14; Col. iii. 1—17; 1 John i. 7). He has ransomed us from our bondage to sin (Matt. xx. 28 ; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7 ; 1 Pet.

1. 18-21). He has offered the one true and effectual propitiation [iXacr/xo?, for sin (Heb. ii. 17; 1 John

2. 2 ; iv. 10), of which the sacrifices for sin under the Jewish law were but symbols.

Our conscience, which accuses us of sin and threatens us with the wrath of God, thereby teaches us our urgent need of a reconciliation with God Most High. As we cannot ourselves offer a perfect propitiation, God has provided one in Christ, who is perfect man as well as perfect God. Christ's death shows us the terrible and heinous nature of sin. The crime of putting Christ to death was the acme and consummation of the world's sin. Self-loye and self-will had caused Adam's sin. Christ on the cross offered self to death. The atoning virtue of His death consists not in His physical sufferings as such, but in the infinite offering of His love, which led Him, the sinless Head of the human race, to endure the suffering which is the result of other men's sins. He of His own free will (John x. 17, 18) laid down His life for us, and He thereby as our representative made an act of submission to the justice of God's sentence on sin and on sinners (Ezek. xviii. 20). It was not the actual death itself so much as the free surrender of Himself, and

[* Compare Augustine, Trad. CX. in Iohannem, quoted by Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, Lib. ii, cap. xvi, § 4.] obedience to God's Holy Will even unto death, that was of the essence of the sacrifice which He offered for us. Yet He suffered everything that human nature united to the Divine Nature could suffer, and that not only in body, but in mind and spirit also, for His grief for men's sins broke His loving heart (John xix. 34). Being one with His Father, His holiness and His love for man led Him to feel the heinousness of our sins: becoming one with us in His humanity, He felt the terrible nature of the curse under which sin must necessarily lie, since God is perfectly Holy. Hence Christ "tasted death for every man" (Heb. ii. 9) in a way in which none but the Sinless One could (Ps. xxii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34). Thus were displayed at once God's love, His justice, and His mercy.

He who in His human nature died on the cross was God as well as man. As He took upon Himself the burden of our sins and died on the cross for us sinners, therefore those who by true faith are united to Him as branches to the vine (John xv. 4, 5) receive forgiveness of sin and are delivered from the fear of death (Heb. ii. 14, 15), since the sting of death is sin (1 Cor. xv. 56), which causes the unpardoned sinner to look forward with a fearful dread to the wrath of God. That Christ's sacrifice was accepted and His Atonement effectual is proved by His Resurrection (Rom. i. 4), and His Ascension to Heaven (Luke xxii. 51) to present Himself there as our representative (Heb. ix. 24), and to return to the glory which He had with His Father before the world had come into existence (John xvii. 5).

We now proceed to point out a few of the blessed results which proceed from the Atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The first of these is that God for Christ's sake forgives the sins and transgressions of all true Christians (Rom. v. 5-21 ; Eph. i. 3-7; Heb. x. 1-25 ; 1 John i. 7). Then God, for Christ's sake, grants them His special grace and the light of His heavenly guidance. He illumines their hearts so that they may be able to understand their own inner condition and may truly know God. By filling their hearts with love to Himself, who first loved them, He enables them to go on gaining more and more spiritual strength, so as to keep His commandments, attain to purity of heart, and acquire perfect knowledge of the truth (John viii. 31 ; Rom. v. 5; viii. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 4, 5; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 15-23; Phil. iv. 13; Col. ii. 3 ; Titus ii. 11—14 ; Heb. ix. 11—14). Another result of the Atonement is that Christ has thereby freed His true disciples from the slavery of Satan, has delivered them from the love of sin, and has made them heirs of eternal felicity (Rom. viii. 12-17; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; Heb. ii. 14, 15; r Pet. i. 3-9).

Now, since the salvation offered to sinners in Christ is so blessed and so precious a thing that by it men are cleansed from the defilements of sin, have the gate of God's good pleasure and loving-kindness opened to them, find enlightenment and sanctification, and at last enter upon the enjoyment of eternal life and endless, pure and holy felicity, it is therefore clearer than the sun at noonday that the doctrines of the Gospel are those which satisfy those yearnings of man's heart of which we have spoken in the Introduction. Hence the Bible must be the True Revelation, the Word L"^) of God. r

If a man who has heard the good tidings of salvation rejects it, the reason no doubt is that he has not repented of his sins, and is ignorant of the state of his own heart in God's sight. If a man is indifferent to his own dangerous condition, and does not perceive that his spirit is attacked by the deadly leprosy of sin, which is hastening him to eternal death, then he will not seek for the cure which the one true Physician of the soul is offering him. But to the man who, being aware of the sinful state of his own heart, knows that sin is hateful in the sight of the Most Holy God, and that he himself is in the greatest danger of perishing because of his sins, since he cannot make atonement for them, the glad tidings of the salvation which Christ has purchased for him with His own most precious blood, and which He freely offers to every true Christian, must be the most sweet and comforting of all things. This good news of a freely proffered salvation is a balm which is able to heal his heart, bruised and crushed by the intolerably weighty burden of sin. If, however, a man is in slavery to his own sensual desires and base passions, and is sunk in the abyss of love of the present world, then he is like the bat, which hates and shuns the light of the sun. Such a man flees from the light of the glorious Gospel, and by rejecting the light he condemns himself to abide in the outer darkness (John iii. 19-21). It is not possible for such persons to understand spiritual things, hence the Gospel seems to them foolishness, as it seemed to the heathen Greeks of old (1 Cor. i. 18-25; ii. 14). On the other hand, to the man who is earnestly seeking the truth and wishes to know and to do God's will, the revelation of God's love and mercy in Christ Jesus, and the manifestation of the way of salvation through Him, come as a well-spring of true blessedness at which he can quench the thirst of his heart as he journeys through the desert of this life below.

In the Divine Plan of Salvation God's love and mercy, as well as His justice and holiness, are clearly manifested. Out of the abundance of His love, and to save man from the destruction caused by sin, God hath freely given His only Son, the effulgence of His glory, in order that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. Thus does this priceless doctrine exhibit most clearly those Attributes of God which it behoves us most to know, and, by teaching 11s how abhorrent sin is in His most holy sight, it urges us to obey His commandments and walk in the way of faith in Christ which leads to eternal life.

Let it not escape the notice of the wise and thoughtful that in the realm of creation the great and glorious Creator has elsewhere given us to perceive something analogous to this way of salvation through the sufferings of Christ on our behalf. The father of a family often has to toil and suffer and risk his life in order to procure the food and clothing on which his children's health and life depend. The physician has often to incur great danger, and sometimes to die by disease, in order that he may try to save the sick. Even the birds of the air toil to build nests and to hatch and feed their young; and the mother bird will risk her life in battling with a hawk in order to preserve her chicks from his talons. God has put love for their young into the hearts of birds and beasts as well as of men. Pure and unselfish love often calls for self- sacrifice. Hence it is not incredible to thoughtful men that God has Himself manifested love in giving His only Son, one with Himself, to suffer and to die and to rise again from the dead for the salvation of His creatures.

Since faith and- reliance upon Christ, who loved and gave Himself for us, is the medicine which the Almighty and All-Wise God has appointed as the remedy for the leprosy of sin, therefore he who, trusting to God's boundless wisdom, uses this remedy thereby gains spiritual health and attains true blessedness. And as the restoration of the sick man to health through use of the medicine prescribed by the physician is a proof of the efficacy of that remedy, so the believer in Christ, having been healed from love of sin through faith in the Saviour who laid down for him His precious life, knows assuredly the efficacy of the spiritual cure revealed in the Gospel. Hence with grateful heart he thanks and serves the true Physician.

Thus the attainment of salvation from sin through faith in Christ is a clear proof of the truth of His teaching, and shows that the Bible which bears witness to Him is the Word L^) of God.

CHAPTER V

THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE AND UNDIVIDED

TRINITY IN THE UNITY OF GOD MOST HIGH

What has been said in the fourth chapter concerning the way of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be properly understood by the seeker for the truth until he has studied the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Our use of the word Trinity is often a stumbling-block to our Muslim brothers, because they do not know what the Christian doctrine on this subject really is. Hence they fancy that it is directly contrary to belief in the One True God. But this is by no means the case : God forbid ! On the contrary, the doctrine of the Divine Unity is the very foundation of our belief in the Trinity. All Christians believe in One God, not in three Gods.

Any one who studies the commentary of Jalalu'ddin on Sfirah v. 77, and his note, as well as those of Baiz&wi and Yahya' on Stirah iv. 156, will see that these commentators fancied that the Christians believed that the Most Holy Trinity consisted of Father, Mother and Son, imagining that the Virgin Mary was a goddess, and was one of three separate Deities. Now there can be no doubt that in Muhammad's time the common people among the Christians were very ignorant and had fallen into gross errors, offering worship to the Virgin Mary and to the saints, just as ignorant Muslims to-day perform pilgrimages (^bj) to the graves of dead Walis (-LJy). But as no man of learning can say that such conduct is in accordance with the teaching of the Qur'Sn, so no scholar now fancies that the errors of ignorant Christians in Muhammad's time should be supposed to represent the

m

teaching of the Bible on this point. The Qur'dn condemns the worship of the Virgin, and the Bible nowhere sanctions it. But this has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians have never acknowledged three Gods.[1]

Since such thoughtful and learned men as these three famous commentators were misled on this point through prejudice, it is clear that all wise men should inquire into this important matter very carefully for themselves, lest they too should be deceived, and should through this mistake reject the truth. We Christians regard belief in three Deities, one being the Virgin Mary, with exactly the same abhorrence as do the Muslims. This will be seen from what we now proceed to explain with regard to our real doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity.

We have already pointed out that belief in the Oneness of God is taught in the Taurat in the words " Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4). In the Injil we find the Lord Jesus Christ quoting these very words as the foundation of His own teaching (Mark xii. 29). The doctrine of the Trinity is an expansion of this, founded upon the rest of His teaching,—for example, upon His command to His disciples to baptize their converts into the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matt, xxviii. 19). Here it is evident that the Unity of God is taught, because the word Name is in the singular: yet the three Hypostases (^Ul) are mentioned separately. The Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be creatures, for it would be manifestly wrong to associate creatures with the Creator in the Unity of the Most Holy Name. Nor can the titles " Son of God" and " Holy Spirit of God" be properly applied to creatures, however exalted. This is evident to everyone who reflects upon the matter.

The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity may be briefly stated^1 thus:—

1. The Father, the Son and Holy Ghost are One, and only One God.

2. Each of these three Divine Hypostases has a peculiarity incommunicable to the others.

3. No One of these three Divine Hypostases, if He could be entirely parted from the others, which is impossible, would alone and by Himself be God.

4. Each Divine Hypostasis (^^il), being united with the other Two in eternal ^Jjl) and inseparable unity, is God.

5. Each Divine Hypostasis is of the same Nature (uyli) and Dignity as the other Two.

6. The chief office of One Most Holy Hypostasis is best expressed, as in Holy Scripture, by the titles Creator and Father; of the Second by the terms The Word of God, the Son of God, the Redeemer; of the Third by the words Sanctifier and Comforter.

7. As the three Most Holy Divine Hypostases are one in Nature (^.b), so they are in Will, Purpose, Power, Eternity, and in all other attributes.

8. Yet the Bible teaches that the Father is the Fountain of Deity [^77777 OeirrjTos], and in this sense is greater than the Son,2 though in Nature (^u) they are One.3

It is often said that this Christian doctrine is a contradiction in terms. This statement is manifestly incorrect, and betrays ignorance of what we really believe. It is true that the doctrine involves a mystery, but that is quite another thing. If the Most Holy Nature (eylj) of God Most High were devoid of mystery, that is to say, if the mode of His Existence could be fully comprehended by the finite intellect of His creatures, He would not be God, because He would be finite. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity

f^1 Mainly from Joseph Cook's Boston Monday Lecture, The Trinity a Practical Truth.]

s John xiv. 28. * John x. 30.

m 2

contains a mystery is not therefore an argument against its truth. For a mystery is a thing about which we do not know how it is, though we know that it is. For example, we know that the grass grows, though we do not know how it grows. The Universe of God is full of mysteries, and man is a great mystery to himself. He does not know how the spiritual can influence the material, yet he is himself a spirit dwelling for a time in a material body. If therefore God has revealed in Scripture certain doctrines regarding His own Most Holy Nature («yU), we cannot expect to find these doctrines devoid of mystery. Nor is their mysterious- ness a ground for refusing to believe them, provided that we find that they are really taught in the Word (j.^) of God. Every careful student of the Bible will

find that the doctrine which we have above stated is undoubtedly taught there. It may be stated in other words than those which we have used. For example, the Doctrine of the Trinity is often couched in the following words,1 which all Christians will confess to be in accordance with the teaching of the Bible.

" There is but one Living and True God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons" (Hypostases i^oLi!), " of one substance, power, and eternity; the leather, the Son. and the Holy Ghost."

Not only is this in accordance with Holy Scripture, but the earliest Christian writers whose works have come down to us show in them that the}' understood the Bible as teaching the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, just as we do now.

Reason itself teaches us that we can know nothing of God's Nature but what He has Himself revealed. Hence the wise have well said, " Disputation 2 about the Nature of God is blasphemy." p The first of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.]

Some of our Muslim brothers assert that the doctrine of the Unity of God is opposed to belief in the Trinity. But as both these doctrines are revealed in the Word of God, they cannot really contradict one another. The idea of unity does not exclude «//kinds of plurality. For instance, it is admitted that God has a plurality of Attributes, such as mercy, justice, power, wisdom, eternity. In fact, Muslim theologians rightly teach that He is the " Union 1 of Good Attributes Y But plurality of Attributes is not a contradiction of the Divine Unity. So, too, the doctrine of the existence of three Hypostases in the Unity of the Divine Nature is not contrary to that Unity, belief in which is the foundation of all true religion. It is granted that no perfect illustration (JIs) of the Divine Nature can be found in creation, yet imperfect illustrations may be helpful to our finite understandings. The Taur&t tells us that God created man in His own image (Gen. i. 27) : and in accordance with this is the wise saying of 'All ibn Abi Talib, " Whoso 3 knoweth himself knoweth his Lord." Hence we may institute the following imperfect comparison. Each man is one single personality, yet he may correctly speak of his spirit as " I " (Cm),

as also of his mind (jix) and his soul (jLii). These three things are in some measure distinct from one another, for the mind is not the spirit, nor is either of these the soul: yet we cannot say that it is incorrect to call each of them the Ego, though the Ego is one, not three. Strictly speaking, any one of them, apart from the other two, is not the whole personality, yet all three are so united that they together form the Ego, nor are they ever separated, at least in this life. This is a

■ JUi i^l&e 1

2 In the Mizanul Mavazin, p. 14, it is said: Jfjl L eilji- iljyeyt j»UL« y, J^l \j ^Ua (j'Ui

.^l-Ai I^r^i uV®

I», -«» , o » - c „ „ — o -*

. 1 jjC jJLj & ... g '1 v 'ijS- jj-ft

mystery, one of the many mysteries in our own nature. We do not understand it, yet we know that so it is. Each individual is a single person, yet none the less is he conscious of this distinction within himself, which does not, however, contradict the fact of his own single personality. We do not adduce this illustration as in any sense a proof of the truth of the doctrine of the Divine Trinity in Unity. The proof of the doctrine, as we have already said, is found in the Bible, and especially in the New Testament. We accept this doctrine solely because it has been Divinely revealed by Him who is the Truth (JJJ). What we are now endeavouring to do is merely to show that certain arguments commonly brought against the doctrine are not sufficient to refute it. On the contrary, they arise in some measure from misunderstanding the Christian doctrine on the subject of God's Most Holy Nature. Hence it is our duty to try and explain this doctrine, and thus to remove out of the path of our Muslim brothers one of those stumbling-blocks which now prevent them from coming to the knowledge of the truth.

It is a very remarkable fact that the Qur An agrees with the Taur&t in using the first person plural of the verb and of the personal pronoun in speaking of God. In the Taurat this usage seldom occurs, though examples of it are found in Gen. i. 26 ; iii. 22 ; xi. 7 : but in the Qur'in they occur with great frequency. For instance, in Surah xcvi, ATAlaq, which some say contains the earliest revelation which Muhammad claimed to have received, although the Almighty is called "the Lord" (ver. 8) and "God" (ver. 13), a singular noun being used in each case, yet in ver. 17 He is represented as saying, " We too will summon the guards of hell," using the verb in the first person plural. As both the Bible and the Qur'&n therefore agree in the use of such language, it cannot be devoid of meaning. The Jews explain it by saying that God was addressing the angels : but this explanation does not suit the Taurat, and is absolutely incompatible with the language of the Quran. Nor does the usual explanation, that the plural is used to express God's majesty, completely satisfy an earnest inquirer. It is not our duty to comment upon the use of the plural in such places, but we can hardly be wrong in saying that the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, as we have above set it forth, would render it easier to understand how belief in the Divine Unity can be reconciled with the use of " We" in the Qur'&n in reference to God.

Although no similitude (jiJ) drawn from created things can at all perfectly set forth the Divine Nature, yet there are others besides that already mentioned which may help to show that there are certain kinds of plurality which are quite consistent with a real unity: For example, in a single ray of white sunlight there exist three distinct kinds of rays, those of (1) light, (2) heat, and (3) chemical action. Yet these cannot be so completely separated from one another as to form three distinct rays : on the contrary, the unity of the ray requires the existence of all three within it. Another way of putting the illustration may be employed. - Fire, light, and heat are three, and yet one. There is no fire without light, and heat, while light and heat are of the same nature and origin as fire. They are, moreover, of the same age with it. We may say that the fire gives out light and heat, and that light and heat are produced by fire, or that they proceed forth from the fire. But this does not imply that they are ever separated from the fire, and do not continue to exist in the fire at the very time at which they are rightly spoken of as having issued forth from it. In the same way, Mind, Thought, Speech, are one, and yet are distinct from one another. We cannot conceive of a mind utterly destitute of thought, and thought has within it speech (jl^T), whether uttered or unuttered. Here again we see that certain forms of plurality are not opposed to unity, and that there exist certain things the very nature of which is plurality in unity.

Hence we conclude that the existence of the three Most Holy Hypostases in the Divine Unity is not opposed to enlightened reason. It is, on the contrary, supported by certain analogies among the works of the great Creator of the Universe ; and it is taught in the Word (riLT) of God.

There is another matter which must be considered in connexion with this doctrine. One of the Most Excellent Names of God among Muslims is Al WadMx (.>^1), " the Lover." This is in complete accord with many passages of the Bible, as, for instance, with Jer. xxxi. 3 ; John iii. 16 ; 1 John iv. 7-11. God's Nature is unchangeable ; therefore, as He is now The Lover, He must always have been such. That is to say, the Attribute of Love (¿bjil) must from all eternity have existed in the Divine Nature. But Love implies an object. Before Creation, nothing existed but the Necessarily Existent One (jj»Jjf Unless there

fore we admit the heretical idea of a change in the unchangeable Divine Nature, and hold that God began to love only after He had created His creatures, we must acknowledge that in the Divine Unity there exists at least a Lover and a Loved (jjSji). This is the deduction of Reason, and it is in accordance with John xvii. 24, where the Word of God (¿fi^iT) says to His Father, " Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world." The doctrine that in the unity of the Divine Nature there are three Hypostases of one and the same Nature, Power, and Eternity, explains, and alone explains, the existence of the Attribute of Love in God in a way consistent with our necessary belief in the changelessness of Him who has said, " I the Lord change not" (Mai. iii. 6).

But some one may ask, " What is the benefit of believing the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ? "

To this there are many answers, of which we give a few.

1. Belief in this doctrine removes all intellectual difficulty in believing that God is Self-Sufficing (^l&l) and Independent S&rah cxii. 2) and Changeless. This is clear from what has just been said. Reason therefore demands the doctrine.

2. It enables us to accept the doctrine of the Bible, while it explains certain parts of the teaching of the Qur'dn.

3. It enables us to believe the truth of Christ's claim to be the Word of God, which is asserted both in the New Testament and in the Qur'&n. This title (>' '■; , Stirah iv. 169, and ^¿jfjp, Sfirah xix. 35) must express His true Nature and Office, since it is given Him in the Kaldmu ll&k (¿T^T). Now the term Kalimah

Aoyos, Word, Speech) denotes the expression of what is in the mind of the speaker, who in this case is God Most High. If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God's will: but since God Himself calls Him "The Word of God", it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God's will and the only perfect Manifestation (^¿Li) of God. It was through Him that the prophets spoke when He had sent them God's Holy Spirit to enlighten them (Luke x. 22; John i. 1, 2, 18; xiv. 6-9; 1 Pet. i. 10-12). Since, then, the title Kalimatu llah shows that Christ only can reveal God to men, it is clear that He Himself must know God and His will perfectly (as He asserts in John viii. 55; x. 15). In this He differs from him who said,1 "We have not known Thee with the truth of Thy knowledge." Muslim theologians^2 admit that the Holy Nature of God is too high and lofty and the

[' Muhammad, as quoted in the Persian work, Hiddyatu \ TdliMn, p. 42 :J abi^Li ¿)Ll££ L>.

a Cf. Hiddyatu t TdliMn, p. 10.

Truth of the Necessarily Existent One is too exalted and transcendent for its Essence (»is ) to be known by any one of the wise ('"U^Jl) or learned ('Li^Jl), or even by the saints or prophets Hence God

would be unknown and unrevealed except for the Kalimatu llah} Therefore " the Word^2 of God who knows God perfectly, cannot be a mere creature. Even were He the highest of the archangels, He would still fall infinitely short of being able perfectly to know God. None can fully know God but God Himself, for even a man's mind and thoughts cannot be fully known by any but God who searches the hearts. We see therefore that Reason demands the Deity of the Kalimatu llah. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity shows that Reason is here justified. It thus helps us to believe that Christ's claims are true, and to accept the salvation which He offers.

4. Belief in the doctrine of the Divine Trinity in Unity abolishes the blind and hopeless belief in a stern and unchangeable Fate, which oppresses the Muslim as much as it does the HindCi. This belief in Fate is one of the chief causes of the apathy which has caused Muslim nations to become unprogressive, and hence to fall behind Christian nations in progress and civilization. The Arabs, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Turks, are at the very least as intellectual, as brave, as enterprising, as the nations of Europe. Ancient history proves this beyond the possibility of doubt. If it were not for their fatalism they might renew their strength. When we believe that God has loved us so much that He has revealed Himself in the Kalimatu ll&h, who has for our sakes become man, has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, has lived and died and risen again for us, then we feel that we can trust God, for in all

P The Word (a^yos) of God.j

[* Arabic distinguishes clearly between "The Word of God" (¿1 i^JlT) applied to Christ and what in English is the same title, but in Arabic is quite different (¿¡¡if applied to the Bible.] this His Love has been proved to us (John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 7-16). It is because our Muslim brothers reject the doctrine of the Trinity that they reject the Deity of Christ. Therefore, if they think at all deeply, they find themselves absolutely unable to know God. Hence in Egypt at the present day the following proverb has become current: " Whatever^1 has entered into thy mind is thine own state, and God is the converse of that." Thus Isldm leads to Agnosticism. But belief in the True Manifestation (J+il) enables us Christians to know God, and so to love Him who has first loved us (1 John iv. 19). His Holy Spirit ever abides with true Christians, rendering their hearts His shrine, and leading them nearer to God and into fuller knowledge of the truth (John xiv. i'6, 17, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7, 15 ; Acts i. 5 ; ii. 1-4 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17 ; vi. 19). They are thus reconciled to God and brought into communion with Him, as sons with a loving Father in Heaven, instead of trembling like slaves in the presence of a wrathful Q^s) Master.

We learn, then, from the Bible that God Most High has revealed Himself to us: (1) as the Holy and Loving Father, who, although in His perfect Holiness He abhors sin, yet has from all eternity purposed to Himself, in accordance with the abundance of His love and mercy, to adopt one special method by which all men, if they be willing to accept His freely offered grace, may be saved from sin and reconciled to Him in heart and mind and in will and in conduct. (2) This revelation of God is given to mankind by means of His Word (ILJZ), the Only Son of God, through whom alone can any created being attain to the knowledge of the Heavenly Father. Becoming incarnate and taking upon Him human nature, the Divine Word " bore our griefs and carried our sorrows ". He died on the cross for our sins and rose again for our justification (Rom. jy. 25). (3) And that mankind may accept the

.alii iJillii ¿Tj _ eUU ¿¡i _ <sUG ^ Jii. U J^'

salvation thus wrought out for them by the Kalima- tu'll&k, He has sent the Holy Spirit of God, the third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, to convince them of sin and of their need of a Saviour, and to enlighten their hearts by making known to them the riches of the Gospel, thus leading them to seek, obtain, and enjoy eternal life.

Let it not fail to be noticed that the proof of the truth of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the same as that upon which depends belief in the life after death, belief in the Resurrection Day,-and belief in all other doctrines which involve faith and distinguish worshippers of the One True God from all heathens and polytheists : that is to say, the fact that all these doctrines alike are revealed in the Word LuS^) of God. r

We now proceed to show very briefly how we may in our own hearts realize the salvation which the Lord Jesus Christ offers us, and how we may through Him obtain eternal life (John xvii. 1-3) and all the other great blessings which God is willing to bestow on His creatures.

According to the teaching of the New Testament, it is only through a living trust in and reliance upon Christ (Acts iv. 12 ; xvi. 31; 1 John iii. 23) that we can become heirs of those unspeakable joys and blessings and of those " things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love Him" (1 Cor. ii. 9). Faith in Christ does not mean merely an acknowledgement that His teaching is true. It means a perfect trust in a living, loving Saviour, who came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. i. 15) from their sins (Matt. i. 21), and who is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through Him (Heb. vii. 25). Such a living faith unites us spiritually to Christ (John xv. 4-10), and makes us in Him Children of God (John i. 12, 13; 1 John iii. 1-12). It strengthens us to break loose from the love of sin and from slavery^1 to the Devil, to cast away the works of darkness,2 to walk worthy of the holy calling wherewith we are called, walking in the light as children of light (John viii. 12 ; xii. 35, 36).

But, since man cannot by his own power acquire such a living faith in Christ, God has therefore, of His great love for mankind, provided for us the grace of His Holy Spirit, in order that His gracious influence upon our spirits may give us spiritual life and strengthen us to believe in Christ, unless we determinately oppose His benign influence.

We have already seen that Christ is The Word of God, the only true Divine Manifestation. It is clear therefore that only through Him can man come to God (John xiv. 6). Hence without faith in Christ men cannot be accepted in God's sight, and cannot obtain forgiveness of their sins. The Holy Spirit therefore urges men to repent of their unbelief and of all their other sins, to embrace the salvation freely offered by Christ, and to forsake sin. He shows us the evil state of our own hearts, convicts us of sin, and warns us of the coming Judgement (John xvi. 8). He urges us to seek reconciliation with God through the one propitiation once offered by Christ (Heb. x. 10-14). Those who follow the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit are justified through their faith in Christ, and have peace with God through Him (Rom. v. 1). He gives them the peace of heart which the world cannot give (John xiv. 27). Then the penitent sinner is freed from the fear and dread which he previously felt on account of his sins, the burden which pressed like a mountain on his spirit is removed and cast into the fathomless sea of God's mercy (Matt. xxi. 21 ; Mark xi. 23). His inner darkness is dispelled and heavenly light shines into his heart, for the love of God now reigns there, and God is known to him as his Heavenly Father

1 John viii. 34-36.

' Rom. xiii. 12 ; Eph. v. xi; Col. i. 13; 1 Thess. v. 4, 5; i Pet. ii. 9; 1 John i. 6.

through Christ. The sinner now forsakes his sins and endeavours by God's grace to keep God's commandments. He therefore, through communion with God, enjoys unspeakable happiness here on earth, even amid persecutions, sorrows, and trials. He knows from his own experience that all which the Bible declares concerning the fruits of salvation is certainly true.

The change, then, which the influence of the Holy Spirit produces in the heart of the believer in Christ is such that it not only turns the heart from sin to righteousness, from darkness to light, from Satan to God, but is really a new spiritual birth (John iii. 3, 5), by virtue of which the true believer in Christ becomes spiritually a new creation (2 Cor. v. 17; compare Gal. vi. 15).

It is the will of God that every man should repent of his sins and should obtain salvation through faith in Christ (Ezek. xxxiii. 11; 1 Tim. ii. 3-6 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9). Hence no one is shut out from the hope of salvation. Everyone who sincerely seeks for redemption through Christ will assuredly obtain it (John vi. 37). But those who, trusting in what they consider to be their own good deeds and the store of fancied merits which Satan tells them they have laid up for themselves, refuse to come to Christ for salvation, are resisting the Holy Spirit and are pronouncing their own condemnation (John iii. 16-21; v. 40). Though here they may resist Christ's love and mercy, yet finally they will be compelled to bow down before Him, as the Scriptures say (Isa. xlv. 23 ; Rom. xiv. 11 ; Phil. ii. 9-11).

From what has been said it will be evident that the change of heart produced by faith in Christ does not allow men to remain in carelessness or to continue in sin. It is a living and life-giving faith, urging men to do all that is good and to refrain from evil. Thus the believer in Christ, if his faith is real, by the grace of God's Holy Spirit overcomes sin in his own heart, resists the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, treads down his own evil desires, and devotes himself to living in accordance with the Will of God Most High in holiness of character and conduct. He has tasted of God's exceeding great love and mercy in Christ, he knows what deep joy and happiness his faith gives him. Therefore he shuns every sinful thought and action, while night and day he strives to keep all God's commandments and to walk in the light as befits a child of the light.

CHAPTER VI

THE LIFE AND CONDUCT OF A TRUE CHRISTIAN

1 See Lev. xix. 18.

It is stated in the Gospel that one day a Jewish lawyer inquired of the Lord Jesus Christ what commandment of the Law of God was the most important of all. In reply Christ said, " Thou 1 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou^2 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hangeth the whole Law, and the Prophets" (Matt. xxii. 35-40; Mark xii. 28-31). In accordance with this it is said elsewhere in the New Testament: " Owe no man anything, save to love one another : for he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law" (Rom. xiii. 8-10). Love to God produces love towards His creatures, and especially towards mankind at large. The true Christian loves God because he knows that God has first loved him (1 John iv. 9-11, 19 ; Rom. v. 5-8), and this love of God weans him from caring for the pleasures and riches of this transitory world (1 John ii. 15-17). As this love of God grows in his heart, he becomes more and more zealous in the service of God and in doing good to his fellow-men. He realizes that God is his Heavenly Father, and that in Christ he is God's child (John i. 12; 1 John iii. 1, 2). Hence he

1 See Deut. vi. 5.

trusts God, and strives in thought, word, and deed to honour and glorify Him (Ps. lxiii. 1-8). Whenever he is tempted by Satan, he will say, as did Joseph, " How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God ?" (Gen. xxxix. 9), and whatever he does will all be done to the glory of God and to please Him, not men (Col. iii. 23), As he grows to know and love God more and more, he will be continually thanking and praising Him for all the temporal and spiritual blessings which God gives him, and will show his gratitude and contentment not only by his words, but by his whole conduct (Ps. xxxiv. 1 ; Col. iii. 17 ; ;i Thess. v. 15-22).

Another characteristic of the true Christian is that, when he is in trouble or distress in regard to his temporal concerns, he does not rely upon man, but upon God. He does not seek for great wealth or high rank, nor does he feel unduly anxious about his livelihood, but he prays God to bless him in his business, so that his lawful earnings may be sufficient to supply his needs. He feels convinced in his heart that his Heavenly Father cares for him (1 Pet. v. 7) and that therefore he may safely cast all his anxiety upon God. He knows that God has opened for him the gate of His spiritual treasure-house in Christ Jesus, and is sure therefore that the Most Merciful One will not leave him destitute of necessary temporal things (Ps. xxviii. 7 ; Matt. vi. 9-34 ; 1 Tim. vi. 6-11).

The Christian is thankful to God for ease and prosperity, knowing that every good gift and every perfect boon comes from Him (Jas. 1. 17). Birt in tribulation, distress, sorrow, pain, persecution, he is patient, knowing that all things work together for good to those that love God (Rom. viii. 28). He hears it said to him in the words of a good man of old : " Christ's whole life was a cross and a martyrdom, and dost thou seek for thyself rest and joy?" He knows that His Heavenly Father's purpose in permitting him to suffer is to diaw him closer to Himself. Hence he is able to rejoice amid tribulation (Rom. v. 3, 4, 5 ; xii. 12) and

N

to say, " It is the Lord : let Him do what seemeth Him good" (i Sam. iii. 18). He remembers that, though living in the world, he does not belong to the world, for, like Abraham, he seeketh "the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God " (Heb. xi. 10. See also Ps. xxxvii. 5 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17,18 ; Heb. xii. 5, 6).

The true Christian worships God in sincerity and truth (John iv. 24). He desires ever to remain in the consciousness that he is always in God's presence. At all times he turns to God as a child to a loving father, knowing God's care for him. When a child asks his father for anything, he does so naturally, and not in any special form of words. So the Christian is not obliged to use any special formula, or indeed any one sacred language, for he knows that God is ever more ready to hear than man is to pray, and that God's gifts are more than we can either desire or deserve. God knows our needs before we ask, and how ignorant we are of what is best for us. Therefore the true Christian asks for all worldly things which he needs, only with the proviso, " If it be Thy will, O God." But for heavenly things and spiritual blessings he may freely ask without any condition, knowing that these things are good for him and that God is waiting to be gracious to him. If a man has received new and spiritual birth ohn iii. 3, 5) and has thus been enlightened by God's oly Spirit, he will always be singing to God in his heart, and praising Him for His goodness, and holding spiritual communion with Him. Whatever such a man does, he does to God's glory. Knowing that God searches mens hearts and that from Him no secret is hid, he strives to bring every thought into loving subjection to Him. Trusting himself and all his dear ones to God's love and mercy, he enjoys rest and peace of heart and spirit (Matt. vi. 5—15.; Luke xviii. 1-8 ; John xvi. 23; Phil. iv. 6, 7; 1 Thess. v. 17, 18; 1 John v. 14, 15; Jas. i. 5-8).

In addition to private prayer, Christians generally have prayers in their own houses, when the father of the family gathers his wife and children around him to join him in prayer for forgiveness and blessing, and to read the Word of God together. Moreover, in churches and chapels, at fixed times, especially on Sunday, the day on which Christ rose from the dead, Christians assemble for public worship and to listen to the reading of the Bjble and to the preaching of the Gospel by men specially called by God and carefully trained for that office and ministry. Some communities of Christians prefer in public worship to have fixed forms of prayer, thinking these most helpful to the congregation. Others prefer that prayer should be extempore. As God knows all the languages of men, no tongue, not even Greek or Hebrew, is more acceptable to Him for worship than any other. What is necessary, however, is worship in sincerity, in spirit, and in truth. All places are alike holy, if such heartfelt worship as this is offered in them. This only is commanded in the Gospel (John iv. 24), not any rite or formula or special posture or place for worship.

A true Christian recognizes all men as his brethren. He desires their well-being as he does his own, and strives to bring it about by doing them all the good he can, in both spiritual and temporal matters (Matt. vii. 12; xxii. 39; 1 Cor. x. 24). Christ has taught him the Golden Rule (Matt. vii. 12), obedience to which on the part of all men would almost of itself make this earth a Paradise ; hence he strives to do to others, not what they do to him, but what he would like them to do. If they are sick, he tends them, if starving, he feeds them, if ignorant of God, he teaches them what Christ has taught him (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). He loves all men, but especially those that are of the household of faith (Gal. vi. 10: compare Matt, xxiii. 8; John xiii. 34, 35). Even his enemies and persecutors he will love (Matt. v. 44; 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; 2 Pet. i. 5-7), knowing that they are among those for whom Christ died, that some of the bitterest opponents of the Gospel

n 2

have become Christians at last, and that wicked men are merely lost sheep whom the Good Shepherd longs to save from the wolf (John x. 11-16).

The true disciple of Christ is truthful, upright, kind, and pure (Matt. v. 37 ; Eph. iv. 25 ; Jas. iv. ii, 12). He endeavours to promote harmony and concord among men (Rom. xii. 18). He is full of sympathy for the afflicted (Rom. xii. 15; Heb. xiii. 16). He is patient of injury done to himself, committing his cause to God (Matt. xi. 29; Eph. iv. 25-32), though the sight of injury done to others, the spectacle of oppression and tyranny, kindles righteous indignation in his heart, and he strives to right the wronged, at whatever sacrifice to himself. Instances have been known of Christians allowing themselves to be sold as slaves, in order that they might bring spiritual help and comfort to those kept in cruel bondage.

The true Christian knows that he was created for God's service, that he is bought with the price of Christ's most precious blood (1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23), and that his body is the shrine of God's Holy Spirit because of his faith in Christ (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17 ; vi. 19). Therefore he does not pollute and destroy himself, body, soul, and spirit, by giving himself up to carnal lusts, but strives by God's grace to keep himself free from all impurity of both flesh and spirit and to live in holiness (2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Eph. v. 4 ; Jas. i. 21). But he does not fancy that, since the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ, certain kinds of food are forbidden, though he carefully abstains from those that are unwholesome, knowing that this is God's will. He knows that a man is not defiled in God's sight by. what goes into his mouth, but by what evil overflows from his heart through his lips (Mark vii. 14-23). Waste and gluttony are, of course, forbidden to a Christian (1 Cor. x. 31: compare Rom. xiv. 20, 21 ; 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5), as are drunkenness (Luke xxi. 34; Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Cor. v. 11 ; vi. 10; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 18) and all other sinful indulgences of the flesh.

The true Christian shuns every unworthy word and deed, and strives in all things to serve God and do His will (Matt. xvi. 24; Rom. vi. 11-23; 1 Cor. vi. 12-20; 1 Thess. iv. 3-8; 1 Pet. i. 22), endeavouring to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God through the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. iii. 18), because he knows that this alone is of true and lasting value, while earthly wealth and power, for which worldly men strive, quickly fade away from their grasp (Matt. xvi. 26; Eph. i. 15-ii. 10; Phil. iii. 7-16).

Whatever be his trade or business, the true Christian will in it endeavour to please and glorify God, doing his best, avoiding sloth and carelessness, earning his daily bread by his work, if necessary, never running into debt, and remembering that all he has belongs to God, and is entrusted to himself to be used in God's service (Matt. xxv. 14-30; Luke xix. 12-27; Col. iii. 23, 24 ; 1 Thess. iv. 11, 12 ; 2 Thess. iii. 10). In this way, by serving Christ faithfully, he will grow to know and love Him so much that persecution and death will in no manner be able to separate him from his God (Rom. viii. 35-39).. As he advances in the Christian life he becomes more and more like Christ in his character (2 Cor. iii. 18 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9). Being reconciled to God, his will becomes conformed to that of his Heavenly Father. Therefore he receives great spiritual joy and happiness, in spite of earthly trials and sufferings; and even in this life he enjoys a foretaste of the spiritual blessings which are laid up for him hereafter. These are among the results which a true and living faith in Christ produces in a man's heart and life. He has courage to do his duty, for he can say in the fullness of his faith, " I can do all things in Him that strengthened me " (Phil. iv. 13).

But in this world the Christian is as yet by no means made perfect. He is still exposed to the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and has to fight against them manfully unto death. Satan cannot conquer him, because he trusts in Christ. The Christian

is liable to bodily suffering, like all other men, but the remembrance of the presence of Christ, who Himself bore sorrow and suffering (Isa. liii. 3-5), and has promised to abide with His servants all the days {Matt, xxviii. 20), enables him to endure patiently whatever God permits to befall him. He looks forward to a better home beyond the grave (2 Cor. v. 1-9; Phil, i. 23), and still more to a joyful resurrection when Christ Jesus shall come again and put down all enemies under His own glorious feet (John v. 21-29; vi. 40; 1 Cor. xv; Phil. iii. 21).

In the world to come true Christians will know God as He is; they will behold His glory and abide in Christ's presence (Matt. v. 8; 1 Cor. ii. 9; xiii. r2; Rev. xxii. 3, 4). They will then possess perfect purity and freedom from all sin, they will inherit a joy and a happiness that eye hath not seen nor ear heard, they will ever dwell in the light of God's favour and blessing. The thought of these things and of God's mercy in saving sinners and bringing them to holiness and eternal happiness leads us to join with the Apostle of the Gentiles in praising Goa, and saying, " O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are His judgements, and His ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His counsellor ? or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and unto Him, are all things. To Him be the glory for ever. Amen " (Rom. xi. 33-36).

We have described a Christian as he ought to be, as he would be, if he obeyed the precepts of the Gospel. Our Muslim brothers often contrast with this description the lives of many of the Europeans with whom they meet, and then say that Christianity produces characters as wicked, as selfish, as worldly, as licentious, as any other religion. But if they will thoughtfully consider for a moment, they will see that this is hardly a correct statement. In the first place, many Europeans

make no pretence whatever of being Christians. To consider that the words " Christian " and "European " have the same meaning is a great mistake. Secondly, many who profess to be Christians are such outwardly only, not in heart. But Christianity must reign in the heart before it can transform and ennoble the life. The saying " The^1 outward is the superscription of the inward " is not by any means true, or there would be no such thing as hypocrisy. Wiser far is what the Persian poet says:

" Regard^1 we the conduct and character, then, Not by look and by word, but by deed, know we men."

The true Christian is known by his conduct, by his obedience to the law of Christ. If we find a man who disobeys Christ's commands, how can we say that the religion which with his lips he professes is responsible for his evil deeds ? An Afghin Gh&zi who, when a Jihid is proclaimed, rushes valiantly against the enemy and fights till he is slain, surrounded by a ring of dead foes, exemplifies the religion of I slim from one point of view, just as a Christian medical missionary, who risks and perhaps lays down his life in striving to heal those of a different race and religion who are dying of plague or cholera, shows what a Christian's duty is. Each is acting according to the precepts of his own religion. But were the Gh£zl to act like the medical missionary, striving not to kill, but to heal in the J ih&d, all would say that he was not a true Muslim, not a true follower of the " Prophet with the Sword ". The tree is known by its fruits. If a man calling himself a Christian act dishonestly or wickedly, even those who are not Christians themselves justly say that he cannot be a Christian. They therefore bear testimony to the nobility and holiness inculcated by the Christian faith. Hence it is that the Apostle says : " He that

»0-0 > -1> » • *

.^Ul ^l^^UaJI 1

.yis j fJL. j _ yu ^ \j ^ L J

doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He " [Christ] " is righteous: he that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil" (i John iii. 7, 8). To find fault with the Christian faith because of the sins of those who disobey it is hardly worthy of wise men. Thirdly, even those who are most bitter enemies of Christianity admit that here and there true Christians are found, who, though themselves conscious of their imperfections, are good, noble, self-denying men and women, and bear true witness to Christ in their lives. Some of these are medical missionaries, others are nurses in our Christian hospitals, others are officers in the army, others are to be found in every honest trade and calling. No other religion at the present time produces such characters, our enemies themselves being judges. What other religion has established hospitals, as in India, Persia, Egypt, and in many other lands ? What other faith sends men and women to teach and tend lepers ? In what lands other than Christian are vast sums of money raised to relieve distress and feed those who are starving, whenever a famine occurs in any part of the world ? What nations have suppressed the slave-trade, abolished slavery as far as their power extends, and even engaged in war, at great cost in blood and money, in order to put down tyrants and free the oppressed ?

Moreover, the effects produced by true faith in Christ are not confined to people of any one nation, race, or colour. In India, Persia, Egypt, China, Japan, and in every other land where the Gospel has been preached, we find examples of men and women who were once hard-hearted and of evil life, but since they became Christians have been so changed that even their enemies admit that they are good, upright, God-fearing people. Many have undergone persecution and been faithful even unto death. Such men are living epistles of Christ, known and read of all men (2 Cor. iii. 2, 3).

There are, unfortunately, some sects of Christians who offer adoration of some kind to the saints and to the Virgin Mary, and who even bow down before images and pictures. But this is contrary to both the Taurdt and the Injil (Exod.xx. 2-5 ; John xiv. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 5). The New Testament denounces idolatry in no measured terms (1 Cor. v. 10, 11 ; vi. 9 ; x. 7, 14; Gal. v. 20; Eph. v. 5 ; Col. iii. 5 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; Rev. ix. 20; xxi. 8 ; xxii. 15), and the Old Testament history is full of instances in which God most severely punished Israel for this very sin. As such practices are condemned by the whole Bible, it is untrue to say that Christians are idolaters, just as it would be untrue to bring the same accusation against Muslims because many of them, contrary to the teaching of the Qur'&n, offer adoration to the Auliyd and other dead men, and in some cases to trees, and to other stones as well as to the Black Stone at Mecca.

The true Christian is the . man who follows Christ, and who by his life and conduct bears true witness unto Him. In the Visible Church the Lord Jesus Himself told us to expect that tares would spring up among the wheat (Matt. xiii. .24-30, 36-43). But no wise man will mistake the weed for the corn, the bad for the good. Nor is the forged coin an argument against the acceptance of the genuine in the mind of a merchant who is wise and just.

CHAPTER VII

A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW CONTAIN GOD'S TRUE REVELATION

In the Introduction to this Treatise it has been shown that there are certain criteria by which we should test any books which claim to contain a true Revelation. The honoured reader will have perceived, from what has been said in the preceding chapters, that the Bible satisfies those criteria. But we wish to make this still more clear and to sum up the proofs which prove it beyond the possibility of doubt.

i. In the first place, the Injil depicts for us in the Lord Jesus Christ the life and character of the one Holy and Perfect Man who ever lived on earth. Many nations have in their literature striven to draw an ideal picture of a Perfect Man. In some cases this account is quite fabulous, as in what the Hindti books tell us about Rima and Krishna. In others no doubt there is some historical foundation for the story, though legends have grown up about the person of the hero, as in the case of Buddha. But when we compare with Christ all the other great men that have ■ever lived on earth, and even all the heroes of romance, no one can assert a claim to equal Him in humility, goodness, gentleness, love, mercy, holiness, purity, justice, or in any other good attribute. As His character thus excels even the imaginary heroes of poets and romancers, it is evidently not the product of imagination or romance, but is true and real. The book which reveals Him to us must surely have been given us by God : that is to say, those who knew Him and have written down their own knowledge of Him no doubt, in accordance with His promise (John xvi. 12, 13), received from God guidance and grace to enable them to bear true witness unto Him (Acts i. 8), in what they wrote as well as in what they said. The Lord Jesus Christ is His own proof.

" The 1 Sun has come as the proof of the Sun : If thou seekest the proof of Him, Turn not thy face from Him."

2. The perfect Revelation of God cannot be a Book, but must be a person: but the book which bears witness to that person and leads us to seek and find Him cannot possibly accomplish its task unless it have been composed under Divine guidance. Those who read the Bible prayerfully, intent with purpose of heart on discovering the truth, find" that the Messiah, promised in the Old Testament and given in the New, is the theme of the whole Bible, which points to Him as the Saviour, the Word (¿11?) of God, and hence the only person who can truly reveal God to man. By telling us of Him, of His character, conduct, life, death, resurrection, teaching, and promises, and of His unique revelation of God, the Injil solves the problem which had never before been solved, viz. How could the One True God become the Creator of the world and make Himself known to His creatures ? Philosophers of old failed to discover an adequate solution of this problem, and so have those Jews who have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. Muslim theologians have not been more successful. For example, the Author of the Mizdnul Mavazin (2 ^l^iT JyJ) says, "Every^3

.(Mathnawi) i^b. }J ^ jl jj_t> olL ji— i^kif JJo jJf 1

' Fourth edition: printed at the Imperial Press, Constantinople, a. h. 1288. ^

eJjJ-.j isijXt £ xlU jjL> isijX» j! ell^l oif \j J^x. jt, '

uylijLsr* U Olj Q> ^ rv jl J/jU-» yj» j — O—l j^-li (^f-'Lu ^j-i-j j!

(j»i jjljij o^Li* j wile j j J»Lj)l

.(p. 12) j^i dl^l Jj^-J jl j\

percipient requires an instrument of perception

in order to attain the percept (djljl) for between the percipient and the percept there must necessarily be some relation. And since, by reason of His Nature (eyli), God cannot have with created beings any affinity of relationship and conjunction and attachment and resemblance, therefore none of His creatures can attain perception and comprehension of the Divine Nature." " From 1 among the works and products which are the proof of the existence of the Maker and Doer, none can either themselves attain to perception of the Nature of the Creator nor enable another to reach the abode of His Nature or the perception of His truth." H ence this writer informs us that there exists a First Creature -- jjlx* - ¿ji** Jjp), which is in supreme truth God's only creation, and which is " the^2 Absolute Beauty of past eternity (jpl) and the total Light of the Eternal One and the whole and perfect Manifestation of God". When God desired to create His creatures and to make Himself known to them, He made the First Creature, and that First Creature became the object of the Maker's whole love and the manifestation of the Divine Attributes. Being beloved by God, he came to love God. That First Creature, who in the first origin came forth from the Eternal Source, is the whole excellent Medium and the Absolute Prophet of God, and everything that happens from the beginning of creation to the end of the Possible is through him.3 This theory, however, is not really of Islamic origin at all. It comes from^4

j^i ».i JcU j jjfcj JJj »i^L* j J^jl csb g-A 1

d^jl J uyU J.U-. J> J/^JJ W _} d^jl Jiiily \j cyU ^jli

.(p. 17) JOjl^i ojU«» .{Mizdnul Mavdzin, p. 27) Jjj ^ c^i» Jji jlk. JU» *

' Op. cit., p. 29.

[* Somewhat similar is Philo's theory of an " archangel and most anci:nt Aoyos", "standing on the confines separating the creature from the Creator." See Philo's treatise, " On One who is Heir."] the heretics and the heathen philosophers. For example, the heretic Arius taught that there was a First Creature, and that he was the instrument used by God in creating the world.[1] Mini held much the same view of the Original Man, though he said that Satan afterwards made man in the likeness of this original man, uniting the clearest light and his own darkness in him as in a microcosm[2] (^¿lif ^UJl). The heretical sect of[3] the Naasseni (ili^Ui) or Serpent- worshippers, who claimed to be Gnostics ('li^c), were accustomed to honour a hermaphrodite being called ('ASdfxas) Adamas (^^LaJTand used to say that knowledge of him was the beginning of the knowledge of God. One of their sayings was, " The beginning of perfection is the knowledge of man ; the knowledge of God is complete perfection." Adam was an image of this Archetypal Man above, who was called Great, Best, Perfect Man. Something not unlike the Muslim theologians' view is also found in the Qabb&lih (¿^Lili) of the Jews, a work full of the most absurd theories and of ideas largely borrowed from the heathen. There we are told that the Infinite had from all eternity wished to become known. That this might occur, the First Sephir&h (ll^-*,,) or Emanation proceeded forth from Him. This First Emanation is called the Crown. From it came forth a second Emanation, and from the second a third, and so on to the number of ten. These together constituted the Archetypal Man, whom the Qabb&lists style tnt< (^is pUT) and "the Heavenly Man". His head was composed of the first three Emanations. Earthly man is only a dim copy of[4] him.

But the difficulty is not solved by the hypothesis of a First Creature, by whatever names we may call him. As the Author of the MizanuL Mavdzin tells us that no creature can comprehend or reveal the Creator, then it follows logically that this imaginary First Creature, being himself a creature, cannot do so. However much he might be superior to man, yet there would still be an impassable gulf between him and his Creator. Hence, if this philosophy be accepted, we must admit that God can never be known by men. This would overthrow all religion. To adore the First Creature would be to put a creature in the place of the Creator. This would be even worse than Shirk Jl), which the Qur'dn^1 says is the one unpardonable sin. Hence the theory of a First Creature does not help us at all.

Here the Injll comes to our aid, and reveals to us what wise men of old had failed even to imagine, the existence of the Kalimatu'llcLh (Word of God), who is one with God His Father by Nature (John x. 30) and yet has become one with man through His Incarnation. The Book which reveals this one Manifestation of God must have God as the source of its teaching. The difference between the doctrine of the Bible and that of Muslim philosophy as above quoted must be noted. In both cases the need of a Mediator (jL-1^11) between God and man is recognized. But the philosophical view (taught, for instance, in the Mtzdnul Mavdzin) speaks of an imaginary Being, who is neither God nor man, who owes his supposed existence to the conjectures of Jews, heathens, and heretics, adopted by some Muslims. The Christian view is founded upon the Revelation given us by God Most High. In that Revelation we are told of a real Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is both Perfect God and Perfect Man, who has revealed God to us by His holy life and character as much as by His oral teaching, and who has atoned for our sins by the 1 See Sftrah iv. 51, 116.

sacrifice of His own life on the cross. If we have to decide between the two views, it is not difficult to say which of the two it is the more wise and reasonable to accept—that which has been invented by men, or that which God has revealed through His holy Prophets and Apostles in the Holy Scriptures.

3. The Gospel is evidently from God, because it satisfies the yearnings of the human spirit for the knowledge of God, for justification before God and remission of sins, and for pureness of heart and life. (1) The Gospel declares God's eternal purpose regarding mankind, and reveals to man the reason why he was created, the sinfulness into which he has fallen, and his need of holiness. (2) It tells us how we may obtain forgiveness of our sins through faith in Christ, and may thus become justified in God's sight. (3) It shows how through faith in Christ our hearts may be cleansed, and how God's Holy Spirit may make our hearts His shrine and purify our thoughts and desires. As our love to God grows more and more, we are strengthened in fighting against sin and the Evil One. (4) The Gospel shows us how through the Lord Jesus Christ we may become God's adopted children. Filled with peace and spiritual joy, we then can look forward with the full assurance of hope and love to the joyful day of the Resurrection and to eternal happiness and holiness in God's presence. As man's spiritual needs are thus satisfied through the Gospel, therefore the Gospel must be God's message to man.

It is known by experience that the sacred books of other religions do not produce this effect. Which of them removes fear of the Resurrection Day ? Which of them enables man to know and to love God ? Which of them demands purity of heart and life ? Which of them tells of a Paradise into which nothing sensual or impure can enter, and in which the saved are free from all that is vile, and that is therefore contrary to the Will and Nature of the Holy One ? These books do not show how salvation from sin and acceptance with God can be obtained: therefore they cannot satisfy man's needs. They may order men to perform pilgrimages, to keep fasts, to offer sacrifices : but since none of these things purifies the heart or makes God known, they still leave those who practise them wandering far from the Father's home.

4. The change of heart and life which obedience to the Gospel (¿,LiJl) produces in the true Christian is a proof that it has come from God. This change is first inward and then outward, and it is so great that it is fitly described as a new and spiritual birth (John iii. 3. 5), brought about by the agency of God's Holy Spirit.

5. In the Bible it is evident that those Attributes of the Almighty which man needs to know, and is capable of comprehending in some measure, are revealed, God's moral Attributes of Holiness, Love, Mercy, Justice are clearly taught, as well as those which prove Him to be One, Eternal, Almighty, All-Wise, the Creator and Preserver of the Universe. We are taught in the Holy Scriptures that He has revealed Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ, who went about doing good, who never cast out anyone who came to Him for pardon and help, who was without sin, and yet showed kindness and mercy to sinners, who denounced hypocrisy and declared the future punishment of the impenitent, though He laid down His own life to save us from sin and its terrible consequences. The Bible therefore does not only tell us about God, it shows Him to us in such a manner that all may see Him if they will. In so doing, it teaches us how hateful to God's Nature all sin is and ever must be, and that without holiness no man shall enjoy the Beatific Vision (jLfi^J) of God (Heb. xii. 14).

It is now possible for scholars to become acquainted with the literature of all ancient and modern nations. Therefore we have learnt by study that no one of the 'earned men and philosophers of ancient times ever succeeded in setting forth God as endued with the

Holy and mighty Attributes which we have mentioned. Nor do the books of other religions, even those which have largely borrowed from the Old Testament and the New. Such books, even when they teach the Unity of God, fail to reveal God to men, but leave between the Transcendent God and His feeble creatures a great gulf fixed, so that He can never become known to them.

6. The Divine Origin of the Gospel (^liJl) is clear from its spiritual teaching, which is nobler, purer, and more sublime than that given in any other book. Attempts have been made to deny this, and passages have been quoted from Chinese, Indian, Greek, and other writers, which have been said to teach as high a morality as the Gospel does. But in every instance the attempt to prove this has failed. The Lord Jesus Christ taught, for instance, the Golden Rule : " Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them" (Matt. vii. 12). In certain writings of Greek and Indian[1] philosophers we find the negative form of this, bidding us not to do to others what we should not like them to do to ourselves. But between this and the positive beneficence commanded by Christ there is as much distance as between earth and heaven. Confucius,[2] the celebrated Chinese philosopher, gives the precept also in a negative form more than once, but he never once gives it in the positive form. His grandson, Kung Chih, approaches this more nearly when he says : " In[3] the way of the superior man there are four things, to not one of which have I as yet attained:... to set the example in behaving to a friend as I would require him to behave to me; to this I have not attained." Even here there is no positive precept; he speaks of conduct to a friend only, and not to men in general, and he admits his failure. Again, were it possible to gather from all over the world a collection of moral precepts which would be analogous to those of the New Testament (a thing which men have often attempted, and always failed to accomplish), it would be thereby proved that the one little book which we call the New Testament holds enshrined in it at least as much moral teaching as all other books put together. This alone would prove its inspiration, for by no amount of study could the writers of the New Testament in their own time have culled all these precepts from Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Greek, Latin, Persian, and other writers, many of whom had not then been born. Moreover, the New Testament system of morality is a system, which this collection would not be. It would be a mere heap of withering flowers, whereas the New Testament is the fresh and fertile flower-garden, a garden in which are no weeds. Again, in Christ Himself we have the perfect example, who carried out His own lofty precepts. Nowhere else do we find any such character. Besides all this, while other books give us good precepts mixed with bad, the New Testament gives us good only. The difference will be understood if we remember that, though doubtless the shoulder of mutton given to Muhammad and his companions for supper after the capture of Khaibar was itself good, yet the poison^1 which was in it injured Bishr and others who partook of it Finally, the Gospel gives a motive-power—love to Christ—which is found nowhere else. A student once asked a learned Buddhist monk in Ceylon, " You have studied the Bible as well as the books of your own religion: what is the greatest difference between them ?" The Buddhist replied : " There are noble sentiments in the books of my religion as well as in the Bible : but the great difference between them is that Christians know what to' do, and have power to do it; while we know what to do, but have not power to do what we know to be right." Other religions, we may say, can, as it were, lay down the railway lines: Christ alone can supply the motive power to move the carriages of the train towards the desired goal. This difference is vital. Let it not be forgotten that Confucius only once in all his works mentions God, and then it is in a quotation. He gives absolutely no religious teaching whatever.

7. The inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is proved by the fulfilment of the prophecies which they contain. This fact is unparalleled in the other religious books of the world. Besides the numerous prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Christ, which He fulfilled when He came, as the New Testament shows, we have many others. An infidel King of Prussia once asked a Christian to prove the inspiration of the Bible in two words. He replied," The Jews, your Majesty." The prophecies about their fate (for instance in Deut. xxviii. 15-68 ; Matt. xxiv. 3-28 ; Mark xiii. 1-23 ; Luke xxi. 5-24) have been fulfilled, as our eyes have seen, in their condition to-day. Similarly, the ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, and other great cities show us that the prophecies regarding them have been fulfilled. Long before Alexander's time, Daniel prophesied of his overthrow of Media and Persia (Dan. viii. 3-27) and of the division of the Macedonian Empire after Alexander's death. And history proves that all these predictions, as well as those about the spread of Christianity, the persecutions of Christians, the rise of false prophets, the growth of infidelity in the latter days, have received fulfilment. But as no one except the All-Wise God knows and can foretell the far distant future, it is clear that He has spoken unto men in the Holy Scriptures which contain these marvellous predictions.

8. The miracles wrought by Christ and His Apostles furnish another proof of this. Of these the greatest is the Resurrection of Christ, which proved

o 2

the truth of His claims to be the Saviour of the world and the Word of God.

9. The truth of the Gospel is also shown by the spread of Christianity in early days, and its having been able to resist all the attacks made upon it by Satan and wicked men (Matt. xvi. 18) even until our own day. Although the doctrines of the Gospel appear contrary to the reason of men unenlightened by God's Holy Spirit, and are unacceptable to those whose hearts are full of sensual desires, although the first preachers of the Gospel were for the most part poor and not highly educated, and although those who became Christians were most cruelly persecuted and in many cases martyred for their faith, yet, in spite of all this, large numbers of people embraced Christianity. Thus within a few hundred years after Christ's Resurrection the Christian faith had almost entirely overthrown the heathen religions of Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and some other lands. This victory was not obtained by the sword or by compulsion, but by faith, courage, kindness, faithfulness even unto a martyr's death, and the simple preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Herein was manifest the power of God's Holy Spirit in strengthening the true Christians and enabling them to bear true witness to their Master, so that others also were attracted to Christ and became His faithful soldiers and servants. Other religions besides the Christian have also spread very widely but never by such means as these. In some cases their propagation has been largely due to two things—the trenchant argument of the sword, and permission to men to follow and indulge in their fleshly lusts in this world, with the hope of doing so to all eternity in still fuller measure after the Resurrection. But the spread of a religion by such means as these is surely no proof that it has come from the Holy and Most Merciful God, who loathes cruelty, oppression, hypocrisy, and impurity. Not thus did Christianity spread in the Roman Empire of old, not thus are its victories in every land won to-day.

Whoever will now compare what we have pointed out regarding the Holy Scriptures with the criteria of the True Revelation which were mentioned in the Introduction to this volume will have no difficulty in perceiving that the Bible does assuredly contain that Revelation, especially because it throughout bears witness to the Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only Kalimatu Llah, the perfect Manifestation (^¡u:) of God Most High.

CHAPTER VIII

IN WHAT MANNER THE CHRISTIAN FAITH WAS PROPAGATED IN THE FIRST FEW CENTURIES

When the Lord Jesus Christ began His work of preaching the Gospel, He chose from among His disciples twelve men, whom He trained for the duty of spreading the knowledge of the truth throughout all the world. This training included careful teaching about God's will and the way of salvation. But the manner in which He taught them was by making them witnesses of His holy life, wonderful works, and spiritual doctrine, that they might know Him and God the Father through Him (John xiy. 6-10; xvii. 3). He called these twelve men Apostles (Luke vi. 13), because He was about to send them forth as His messengers.1 After His Resurrection and shortly before His Ascension, He gave them their commission to make all nations disciples (Matt, xxviii. 19) and to be His witnesses " unto the uttermost part of the earth " (Acts i. 8). In order that they might not err in their teaching, but might be strengthened and enabled to do their work faithfully, fearlessly, and successfully, He promised that the Holy Spirit of God should within a few days descend upon them (Acts i. 5 ; see also John xiv. j 6, 17, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7-15 ; Actsi. 4, 8). In obedience to His command (Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 5) they awaited in Jerusalem the fulfilment of this promise. On the fiftieth day after Christ's Crucifixion and the seventh after His Ascension, when not only the eleven Apostles (one of the Twelve, Judas Iscariot, the traitor, was dead) but all other Christians in Jerusalem were gathered together for prayer, the Holy Spirit came down upon

1 Compare Sftrah lxi. 14.

them all in the manner which is related in .the Acts of the Apostles (Acts ii. 1-13), inspiring them with love, faith, zeal, courage, and remembrance of what Christ had taught them (John xiv. 26), and also gradually leading them to a perfect knowledge of the truth (John xvi. 13) which God wished them to know and teach. As a sign that they were to preach the Gospel among all nations, they were on .that day enabled to speak foreign languages (Acts ii. 4), though we never afterwards hear of their preaching in distant lands without having to study the languages of the people. God gave them for the moment the power of using other tongues, but only for a sign, not to encourage laziness in study. Some at least of the Apostles were also enabled to work miracles of healing, similar to those wrought by Christ Himself (Acts ii. 43 ; iii. 1-1 r ; v. 12-16 ; viii. 17; ix. 31-43), but these were done in Christ's name and by His authority and power (Acts iii. 6, 16), not by any power of their own. Some years afterwards, when Paul became an Apostle, he was given the same power and authority as the other Apostles. Many of his miracles of healing are mentioned in the Acts (Acts xiv. 8-10; xix. 6, 11, 12; xx. 9, 10; xxviii. 8, 9). The power of working miracles of healing was given only for a limited time, and probably ceased on the death of the Apostles Had it remained permanently among Christians, it would have become so common that miracles would have lost their evidential value. But at the beginning of the growth of the Christian Church such miraculous power was of great importance, to confirm the faith of those who had to endure persecution because they believed in Christ. We do not find that miracles were used either by Christ or by His Apostles to convince unbelievers.

The Apostles were aided by the Holy Spirit in their proclamation of the Gospel, so that they set forth not their own opinions, but the teaching which God gave them (Mark xiii. 11; John xiv. 26; Rom. xv. 18, 19; 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13; 1 Thess. ii. 13). Therefore what they and their disciples wrote by Divine inspiration we receive as God's message to the world, in accordance with Christ's own words, " He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth Me ; and he that rejecteth Me rejecteth Him that sent Me " (Luke x. 16). Hence the Apostles of Christ rightly laid claim to Apostleship (i Cor. i. i; Gal. i. i ; i Pet. i. i, &c.).

God's power and the influence of the holy life of Christ were so fully manifested through the preaching of the Apostles that in a short time many thousands of the Jews, and even of their priests, became Christians (Acts ii. 41; iv. 4; vi. 7; xxi. 20). Among the Gentiles too the Gospel spread very steadily, and many^1 of them were brought from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God, from worshipping idols to serve the one Living and True God (1 Thess. i. 10).

The Christian miracles are mentioned not only in the New Testament and by early Christian writers,2 but also by the Jews in their Talmud, though the latter blasphemously ascribe Christ's miracles to magic. Among heathen writers of the first few centuries of the Christian era not a few, among them Pliny, Tacitus, Celsus, and the Emperor Julian the Apostate, have testified to the rapid spread of Christianity. Every effort was made by many of the emperors to stamp it out; but, in spite of all that they could do, the new religion continued to spread, and could not be checked by the most fiery persecution and the most cruel martyrdoms.

Some of our Muslim brethren deny that the title of Apostle (jjy) should be applied to any of the disciples of Christ. But in saying this they are showing a want of acquaintance with their own Qur'in. For in Sarahs iii. 45 ; v. hi, 112 ; lxi. 14, they are called ^yji^j]: and all scholars are aware that this is the ./Ethiopian

1. Compare, e.g. Pliny, Epislolae, Lib. x, Ep. 96 [ed. Weise].

2. The Qur an also mentions Christ's miracles: e.g. Sfirah iii. 43.

word for "Apostles ". In the Ethiopian version of the New Testament this word is used in Luke vi. 13, and everywhere else, to translate the title "Apostles" which Christ Himself gave to the

Twelve. The ¿Ethiopic word is derived from a root in that language which means just what jj^ (to send) does in Arabic. No pious Muslim will venture to oppose the teaching of the Qur'&n on this point, or to deny that Christ was right in giving this title to the Twelve. Paul was afterwards appointed to the same office by Christ, speaking to him from heaven (Acts xxii. 21 ; Rom. xi. 13 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; 1 Tim. ii. 7). The success of these Apostles in preaching the Gospel and spreading the Christian faith was the proof of their Apostleship, because it stamped God's seal upon their work.

Christians, as is well known, were not permitted to engage in a Jih&d in order to spread their religion. For Christ Himself had said to Peter, even when it was in defence of his Lord that he drew his sword, " Put up again thy sword into its place : for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. xxvi. 52). Moreover, Christ hates, and used to denounce hypocrisy. When a man is forced to change his religion by persecution, is he not made a hypocrite ? Force cannot make a man a true Christian. It was not by force therefore that Christianity spread in early days. Even now, when professedly Christian nations are very powerful, they never attempt to force anyone to adopt Christianity, for belief cannot be compelled by violence and cruelty. The use of such methods, if sanctioned by any religion, would prove that it did not come from God. Some of the Apostles, like Peter and Paul, drank the cup of martyrdom, after enduring long years of toil and suffering in their task of preaching the Gospel. They constantly exhorted their companions to endure with patience all kinds of suffering for Christ's sake. This patience and love and kindness convinced many that these men were indeed men of God, and that their religion was the truth. Thus the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church. It was not by human learning and eloquence that the Apostles converted men to God. On the contrary, they used simple, homely, ordinary language (i Cor. ii. 1-5, 12, 13). And when, by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, they wrote out the Gospel («A-^) which they had been preaching, or taught converts by Epistles, they used a clear, unaffected style, the language of ordinary men and women, so that readers might be able the more easily to understand God's mercy, love, goodness, and wisdom, and to be embraced by that mercy and love and brought to salvation. The Word { % ) of God is needed, not by the learned only, but by all men, for their guidance and enlightenment. There is no respect of persons with God, who is good to all (Ps. cxlv. 9). Therefore it was in accordance with the highest wisdom that God's message should be so written as to be understood by the unlearned as well as by the learned. For a somewhat similar reason the great philosopher Plato, when he wrote the " Apology of Socrates", used the ordinary conversational language of the time, in order that all might understand it.

The doctrines of the Gospel afford no encouragement to anyone to gratify his sensual passions, nor do they deceive men by telling them that the profession of Christianity will save them from punishment here and hereafter, if they continue in their sins (Matt. i. 21 ; John viii. 34; Rom. vi. 1, 2, 11, 15-23). The way of salvation was declared not to be a broad road, with room in it for a man and his sins, but a narrow way, where sin had to be abandoned by him who would walk therein (Matt. vii. 13, 14). Christ and His Apostles taught that sin was slavery to the devil, and offered to believers release from bad passions and evil ha'bits, calling upon them to abstain from fleshly lusts (1 Pet. ii. 11, 12) and to be faithful soldiers of Christ, ready to lay down their lives rather than return to idolatry and the service of Satan. It was not only or principally among uncivilized people that the Apostles laboured. They preached and made converts in Greece and Italy, then the most highly civilized countries in the world, and God's grace was seen in turning to righteousness some who had previously lived very wicked lives.

Even in the Apostles' days Christian congregations were gathered together in many of the cities and towns of Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, and Italy. At first, as we have seen, most of the converts were made among the Jews, but soon the Gospel spread to Gentiles also. Throughout a large part or the civilized world there were then to be found Israelite traders and travellers. When these were converted, they were instrumental in teaching others. Those Jews who rejected the Gospel were the first persecutors of the Christians, but the heathen soon began to imitate them in this conduct. Yet soon after the death of the Apostles the Gospel had spread to the most distant parts of the then known world, by reason of the zeal, faith, patience, and love of the preachers and teachers who followed them. At last the Roman emperors, fearing lest the worship of the heathen gods and even the empire itself should be overthrown by the new doctrine, began most cruel persecutions. The first persecution began under Nero, who is said to have put Peter and Paul to death, besides burning many Christians alive,1 as lanterns to illuminate his palace gardens at night. The Romans at that time were very irreligious, but they adored the emperor as a god, and endeavoured in vain to make the Christians do so too. The persecutors seized and confiscated the property of the Christians, and put multitudes of them to death in the most barbarous ways. Some were thrown to wild beasts in the amphitheatre at Rome, others were burnt alive, others tortured to death. Again and again during nearly three hundred years did fierce persecution break out in all parts of the great Roman empire, 1 Tacitus, Ahnalium Lib. xv. 44.

which extended from Scotland to the Persian Gulf, from the Atlantic Ocean to the borders of what is now Russia and the eastern shore of the Black Sea, thus including North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Turkey in Europe, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Britain, and other lands. Although the whole might of the Roman Empire long continued to strive to root out Christianity, yet the Christian Church, like an impregnable fortress, successfully withstood these attacks in the might of God Most High. Thus was fulfilled Christ's promise that the gates of Hades or Destruction should not prevail against His Church (Matt. xvi. 18). Nay more, the number of Christians steadily increased, in spite of persecution, until in many places the temples of the idols were almost deserted and the sacrifices at an end. Although they were so numerous, yet the persecuted Christians never rose in rebellion against their persecutors, but patiently endured all that the cruelty of their enemies could devise against them.

At last the Emperor Constantine received the Christian faidi about the year 314 of the Christian era, though he was not baptized until at least several years later. The Christians were then delivered from persecution ; but this led many people to enter the Church without true conversion and proper instruction. Many of them brought heathen ideas with them, and these led to the gradual corruption of religion. The Sacred Scriptures were not properly studied, saint-worship was introduced and spread. The love of many became cold, and religion began to grow formal and external, losing spirituality and purity. Hypocrisy and contentions prevailed, heresies multiplied. Instead of loving God and their fellow-men, too many of these baptized heathen began to hate one another, to quarrel about forms and ceremonies, and even to persecute one another. Hence many of them fell into deadly sin, and many introduced the worship of the Virgin Mary, of the saints, and of images. This was an abomination in the sight of the Holy One. Therefore, just as the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Macedonians, and the Romans were used by God Most High tc punish the Israelites when they sinned against Him and fell into idolatry, so God used the Arabs as His Sword to punish the corrupt Churches of the East (Rev. ix. 20, 21). But in our own day many Oriental Christians are studying the Bible, and so the light of truth is shining into their hearts and lives. Thus many are becoming true and earnest Christians through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. Some of them are being used by God to guide their Muslim fellow- countrymen to the light of the 'Gospel of Christ. All true Christians, whatever else they differ upon, accept the Gospel, and accordingly believe in the Kalimatu llah, and put their trust in His Atonement for the sins of the whole world. May God grant to all the honoured readers of this Treatise that they too may share in the salvation which the living Christ offers freely to all who truly believe in Him !

PART III

A Candid Inquiry into the Claim of Islam to he God's Final Revelation.

CHAPTER I

AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASON AND SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY

The honoured perusers of these pages are respectfully informed that, not many years ago, there reached the famous city of Shiraz in Persia a Christian merchant, whose merchandise was beyond all price, since it consisted of copies of the Word of God, the Book of the " People of the Book", to which Holy Book the Qur an itself bears such high testimony, as we have already seen in the First Part of this Treatise. Wonderful to relate however, when the merchant offered these books for sale, the Mullis stirred up the mob against him. They seized all his books, tore them in pieces, trod them under foot, beat the merchant, drove him out of the city, just as the wicked husbandmen did to some of the servants of the Lord of the Vineyard (Matt. xxi. 33-44), and threatened to kill him if he returned to circulate the Holy Scriptures, regarding which Muslims are commanded in the Qur'&n to say: " We^1 believe in God and in what has been sent down unto us and in what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and what Moses was brought, and Jesus, and what the Prophets were brought from their Lord ; we make no difference between one of them [and another], and we are resigned to Him." In the crowd there stood a Persian

1 Sfirah (A1 Baqarah) ii. 130.

boy. He saw all that took place, and wondered how it was that the Mullis so impiously ventured to urge the ignorant populace to destroy books which the Qur'in professes to have come to confirm and defend.1 While he thought over this matter, the idea occurred to his mind, " Is it possible that these books of the Christians contain something of which our Mullis are afraid, something which disproves Islam ?" This thought terrified the boy, who had hitherto most firmly believed in his religion. He fought against the thought, but could not shake it off. At last, when he had grown up to be a young man, he determined to inquire what the proofs of I slim really were, in order thus to remove the doubts which tormented his mind. There then dwelt near Shir&z a very much revered Hiji, who was famed for his strict observance of all the rites of his faith, for his diligence in the appointed prayers (caljlUl), in reading the Qur in, in fasting during the month of Ramaz&n, and everything else which distinguishes a pious Muslim. To him the young man went for instruction. But he feared to ask openly what he desired to know. Therefore, after a reverential salutation and after showing the venerable H&jl all due deference, he said, " Yesterday your humble servant met a Jew, and tried to convert him to our holy faith. He listened to what I said about the Seal of the Prophets, the Chosen, the Messenger of God tj^-»)» and then said, ' Please tell me what proof you have that Muhammad was a Prophet.' Sir, I gave him what answer I could, but did not convince him. Therefore I have come to ask your Honour what proofs I am to mention to him." The Hiji drew himself up, looked sternly at the youth, and said, "You are an infidel." The youth fled in terror, and soon went to Bombay, where as soon as he could he borrowed the New Testament, and read it carefully, in order to find out what in it had frightened the MullSs and made them destroy the books.

1 E.g. SO rah (A1 Ma'idah) v. 52.

Of all tortures, except perhaps that of remorse, the worst is doubt about the truth of the religion in which a man has been brought up. Doubt also enfeebles a man, and prevents him from performing with any confidence the duties enjoined on him by his religion. It also deprives him of his hopes of an After-life and exposes him to all the temptations of the Devil. But the very existence of so many different religions in the world is permitted for a time by God in order to make the thoughtful man and the earnest truth-seeker inquire, " What proof have I that my religion is the truth ?" If no one asked such a question, the heathen would never be truly converted to Islâm or to Christianity. Hence it is clear that sincere examination of the foundations of one's faith and one's religion is a good thing, provided it be undertaken with humility and earnest desire to know God's will, and to do it. For those who cherish this desire in their hearts will assuredly pray continually to God Most Merciful, entreating Him to grant them light and guidance, in order that they may find the truth and walk as children of the light. If such a man finds his own religion true, then he has conquered doubt and put it to night for ever, and can from the depth of a grateful heart thank God for His grace and guidance. Moreover, knowing the truth, he can teach other men the way of salvation. But should he find on examination that his own religion on the whole is not true, although doubtless it contains certain truths, then he has a chance of escaping from the error of his way and of finding the way that leads to God and to eternal life. In either case nothing but good can result from an honest inquiry into the proofs upon which our faith rests. The danger is lest men, instead of boldly facing their doubts and examining them in reliance upon God, should flee from them. A man who tries thus to escape from his doubts is always pursued by them, and often he falls a victim to them at last, and dies an infidel, having no hope and without God in the world.

But of the true seeker the proverb is true, "Whoso^1 seeketh a thing and striveth findeth, and whoso knocketh at a door and persevereth entereth."

Therefore we invite our Muslim brethren^2 to join us in an inquiry into the proofs upon which their religion is based, just as they have joined us in examining in the first two parts of this Treatise the foundations of Christianity. It is unnecessary to mention once more the criteria already laid down for testing all religions. As we have used them in examining Christianity, so we must employ them in testing Isldm. But this we shall do inwardly, lest our expression of opinion should seem to anyone lacking in courtesy and love.

The Muslim Kalimah [or Creed] consists of two parts, of which the first is accepted by Jews and Christians as sincerely as by Muslims themselves: " There is no god but God." This has been already pointed out more than once in this Treatise. The proofs of the Existence and Unity of God are given in multitudes of books as well as in the whole of Creation, so that there is no need to discuss here what is admitted by us all. God Most High,—may He be honoured and glorified,—has demonstrated His Existence and His Unity by every blade of grass, by our reason and conscience, in the wonderful order and harmony of Nature, and in ten thousand different ways.

But what constitutes the subject of our present inquiry is, " What proof is there of the second clause of the Kalimah ? How can it be shown that Muhammad is the Apostle of God ? " Muslims adduce many proofs in support of their belief in his office as prophet and apostle and in his Divine Commission. The chief of these proofs are:

1. That the Old Testament and the New both contain clear prophecies about him.

2. 1

P

« Sflrah v. 85.

That the language and the teaching of the

Qur'in are without a parallel, and that thus the Qur'An alone is a sufficient proof of the truth of Muhammad's claims.

3. That Muhammad's miracles are a seal set by God Most High on his claims.

4. That his life and character prove him to have been the last and greatest of the prophets.

5. That the rapid spread of Isl&m shows that God Most High sent it as His final Revelation to men.

Now without doubt these alleged proofs or arguments are deserving of great and careful consideration. If they are well-founded, they most undoubtedly do prove the truth of Isl&m.and all men should therefore accept it. But before we can admit their truth, we must examine them more carefully than a merchant does the coins he receives, for our happiness here and hereafter depends in large measure upon the decision to which we come. For the question at issue is, "Who is in our day the Saviour of the world: the Lord Jesus Christ, or Muhammad ?" This is not a subject for strife and quarrelling and bitterness, but for reverent, candid, fearless, and prayerful inquiry. Muslims and Christians are alike interested in the search, and- the result will be to God's glory and their good, for the truth cannot be for ever hid, but must at last shine forth brighter than the sun at noonday.

In the following chapters we proceed to undertake this inquiry, " speaking truth in love," as is enjoined upon Christians (Eph. iv. 15). We shall endeavour so to write that we may not intentionally hurt the feelings of any earnest Muslim. But should any single word or phrase seem unfitting, or not in accordance with the rules of courtesy and brotherly affection, we here most sincerely apologize for it, trusting that the respected readers of these pages will realize that the offence has not been willingly given, and that it is human to err, while readiness to forgive is worthy of all who believe in the Most Merciful God.

CHAPTER II

DOES THE BIBLE CONTAIN PROPHECIES CONCERNING

MUHAMMAD ?

There can be no question that Christ's coming was foretold in the Old Testament in many different places. If, therefore, God Most High had intended to send into the world a Prophet far greater than He was, we should naturally expect to find predictions concerning this future Prophet in the Old Testament, and still more in the New. It is natural therefore for Muslims to seek for such prophecies regarding the Founder of their religion. For, if Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, the person on whose account God created the universe, it would be very strange had God concealed from men the fact that they should look for and obey the coming Prophet. Hence those who believe in Muhammad tell us that clear and unmistakeable predictions regarding him are to be found in the Bible : though they often add that others were once there, but were struck out by Jews and Christians.

We need not concern ourselves with this latter assertion, since in Part I we have proved that the Old Testament and the New remain in our hands in their original languages and in the same form in which they existed in Muhammad's time and for many centuries previously. They have not been corrupted either before or after Muhammad's time. It follows from this that we have nothing to do with mere assertions, but that, if in the text of the Bible as we now have it there do exist true and genuine predictions of Muhammad's coming, we Christians must admit it to be so. We cannot get rid of the force of this argument by saying that such passages are interpolations. On the other hand, should it become clear that the passages

P 2

which Muslims quote do not refer to Muhammad, it will not be allowable for Muslims to say, " Well, the Bible did once contain such prophecies, but you People of the Book have expunged them."

The appeal to the Bible in this matter implies that those who refer to it and adduce from it passages which they think to refer to Muhammad thereby admit that it is (i) Divinely inspired, and (2) uncorrupt: otherwise of what use would it be to refer to such a book as authoritative ? If our Muslim brothers admit these two points, then an inquiry into the alleged Biblical prophecies regarding Muhammad may be very interesting and instructive. But if they do not admit these points, it is difficult to see what use it is for them to refer to the Bible at all in proof of the Mission of their prophet. Of course many learned Muslims—all, in fact, who have carefully studied the matter—do admit these two facts. We may hope too that our honoured readers will grant that what has been said in Parts I and II of this Treatise is in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture.

It will be granted that we are justified in explaining one passage of the Bible by another. Wise men will admit that this is the correct method of proceeding in case of doubt, difficulty, or dispute about the meaning of any verse or passage not only in the Bible but in any other Book. Obscure passages can often be cleared up by plainer verses and by the context. If a later passage explains an earlier prophecy, for instance, it is unworthy of an unprejudiced man of learning to refuse to accept the explanation thus given by an inspired writer, and to expect us to receive instead some commit which does not suit the context and which is in contradiction to many other passages in the book.

We now proceed to examine the chief passages^1 of

1 Many of the passages which are here dealt with are adduced in the Izhdru'l Haqq and are fully explained in the Ibhdtul Mujtahidin, the five volumes of the Hiddyah, and other Christian works.

the Old Testament in the first place in which our Muslim brethren claim to find predictions regarding Muhammad.

1. Gen. xlix. 10. This is asserted to refer to Muhammad, especially as " Judah" in ver. 8 comes from a verb meaning " to praise as does the name " Muhammad ". But the context shows that Shiloh was to be born among the descendants of Judah. Muhammad was of the Arabian tribe of the Quraish. He was not a Jew. The passage cannot therefore refer to him. Moreover, the sceptre had departed from Judah more than 550 years before Muhammad was born. The verb " to praise " in ver. 8 has no possible connexion with the Arabic verb hamada (iH). The Jewish commentaries explain that Shiloh is a title of the Messiah, and the Samaritan Targum implies this also. Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, and the Gentiles have already in large measure become obedient unto Him.

2. Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It is urged that the promised prophet was not to rise among the Israelites ("from the midst of thee" in ver. 15 does not occur in the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch, nor in Acts iii. 22) but among their "brethren" the Ishmaelites (compare Gen. xxv. 9, 18): that no such prophet did rise among the Israelites (Deut. xxxiv. 10) : that Muhammad was like Moses in many points, e.g., both were brought up in their enemies' houses, appeared among idolaters, were at first rejected by their own people and afterwards accepted by them, each gave a law, fled from their enemies (Moses to Midian, Muhammad to Medinah, a name of a similar meaning), marched to battle against their enemies, wrought miracles, and enabled their followers after their own decease to conquer Palestine. In reply it may be said that Deut. xxxiv. 10 refers only to the time at which it was written, and the word " since" may be said to imply the expectation that such a prophet would arise " in Israel", not outside. The words " from the midst of thee " are almost certainly genuine, though even without them the meaning is clear. It is true that Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother : but, if the Ishmaelites may be called the brethren of Israel, assuredly, the Israelite tribes may more correctly be called one another's brethren. (Compare[1] S&rah vii, AI A'raf, ver. 83, " their brother Shu'aib.") Israelites are called one another's brethren in this very book of Deuteronomy, e.g., in chapters iii. 18 ; xv. 7 ; xvii. 15; xxiv. 14. In ch. xvii. 15 we have an exactly parallel passage in reference to the appointment of a king: " one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee." Most, if not all, the kingdoms of Europe are ruled by kings who belong to families which are or were originally foreign : but in all history we never hear of the Israelites appointing over themselves a foreigner as king. They should have gone to the Ishmaelites for their kings, if the Muslim explanation of " from among their brethren" in Deut. xviii. 18 is correct. They did not do so, because they understood their own language. Who at the present day among Muslims, if told to summon one of his " brethren " to receive some important post, would conclude that members of his own family were excluded, and that he must find a man whose ancestors had, hundreds of years before, been kindred to his own ? Moreover, the Taur&t clearly says that no prophet was to be expected from Ishmael, for God's covenant was made with Isaac, not with him (Gen. xvii. 18-21; xxi. 10-12). The Qur'dn also in several places speaks of the prophetic office as having been entrusted to Isaac's seed (Stirah xxix, Al Ankabtit, ver. 27; SGrah xlv, AI Jathiyyah, ver. 15). The promised prophet was to be sent unto Israel-, but

Muhammad professed to be sent to the Arabs among whom he was born. As for a likeness to Moses, we learn from Deut. xxxiv. 10-12, that the two points in which the Israelites expected the coming prophet to resemble Moses were : (1) personal knowledge of God, and (2) mighty works. As regards the former, is there not a tradition that Muhammad said, " We have not known Thee in the truth of Thy knowledge {or as Thou shouldest be known)"? With reference to mighty works,1 the Qur'än tells us that Muhammad was not^2 given the power of working miracles (Sürah xvii, Al Asrd, ver. 61: see Baiziwi's and 'Abbisl's commentaries: Sürahs ii. 112; vi. 37, 57, 109 ; vii. 202 ; x. 21; xiii. 8, 30; xxix. 49, 50). The points of resemblance between Moses and Muhammad which Muslims adduce might be found in Musailamah and in Mint for the most part, but do not prove that these men were prophets. Finally, God Himself has explained in the Gospel that this prophecy referred to Christ, not to Muhammad (compare Deut. xviii. 15, 19, " Unto Him ye shall hearken," &c., with Matt. xvii. 5 : see also Mark ix. 2, and Luke ix. 35). Jesus explains that this and other passages in the Taurit refer to Himself (John v. 46: see Gen. xii. 3 ; xxvi. 4 ; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxviii. 14). He was descended from Judah (Matt. i. 1-16; Luke iii. 23-38; Heb. vii. 14), was born in Israel, and spent almost all His life among the Jews, and sent His disciples in the first place to the latter (Matt. x. 6) and only secondly to the Gentiles (Luke xxiv. 47 ; Matt, xxviii. 18-20). In Acts iii. 25, 26, the prophecy we are considering is definitely referred to Christ.

3. Deut. xxxii. 21: " They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked Me to anger with their vanities." This, we are told, refers to the Arabs, to whom Muhammad was

1 Those of Moses are referred to in the Qur'än (Sürah vii. 101-116, 160).

* See Chapter V below.

sent. It cannot (Muslims say) refer to the Greeks, to whom St. Paul and the other Apostles of Christ went, for they were wise and learned. But this verse cannot be said to refer to any prophet at all. It tells how God will call the Gentiles, not the Greeks only, but the Arabs, the English, and all others, to become one spiritual brotherhood in Christ. This is the explanation of the passage given in i Pet. ii. 9, 10 : compare Eph. ii. 11-13. As for the wisdom of the Greeks, it was not true wisdom, for they had no knowledge of the One True God, and the very beginning of wisdom consists in revering Him (Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7; ix. 10). " The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor. iii. 19).

4. Deut. xxxiii. 2. Here the words, " The Lord came from Sinai " are said to refer to the giving of the Law to Moses: " And rose from Seir unto them," to the " descent" of the Injll: while " He shined forth from Mount Paran " is claimed as a prophecy of the bestowal of the Qur'&n, since it is said that one of the hills near Mecca is called by a similar name. But the context shows that Moses is here making no reference either to the Injtl or to the Qur'&n. He is reminding the Israelites how widely God's glory was seen when they were encamped near Mt. Sinai. The map shows that Sinai, Seir,.and Paran 1 are three mountains quite close to one another. They are in the Sinaitic Peninsula, many hundreds of miles from Mecca. This is clear from the other places where Paran is mentioned (Gen. xiv. 6 ; Num. x. 12 ; xii. 15 ; xiii. 3; Deut. i. 1 ; x Kings xi. 18).

5. Ps. xlv. is said to be a prophecy regarding Muhammad, since he is called " the Prophet with the sword ", and it is thought that verses 3-5 are especially applicable to him. But there are two answers, either one of which alone would suffice to refute this theory. One is that in ver. 6 we read, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Muslims never claim that

1 See a full answer in IlMtul Mujtahidin, pp. 84 sqq.

Muhammad was God. The other is that in Heb. i. 8, 9, it is clearly stated that ver. 6 is an address to Christ. The " King's daughter " of ver. 13 is the spiritual bride of Christ, that is, the Christian Church (compare Rev. xxi. 2), and the foes defeated are Satan and all his hosts and those men whom he has stirred up to oppose Christ's Gospel (see Rev. xix. 11-21). Other similar prophecies about Christ are found in Pss. ii, lxxii, ex. Probably first of all the psalm had reference to Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings iii. 1), and this wedding is taken as a type of the spiritual union between Christ and His Church.

4. Ps. cxlix. is also claimed as a prophecy about Muhammad. The " New song" (ver. 1) is said to be the Qur'&n, and the " two-edged sword " (ver. 6) suits the " Prophet with the sword". 'All too had such a sword, and used it in Muhammad's service. The "king" in ver. 2 is said to be Muhammad. But the Muslims do not use singing in their worship, and the Qur'&n cannot be described as in any sense a " song ". The sword is not said to be in the king's hands, but in that of the Israelites, and with it they were to avenge themselves upon their enemies. The " king " in ver. 2 is in the first part of the verse said to be the Creator, and in ver. 4 He is called the Lord. In no sense can it be said that Muhammad was King of Israel. Nor could the Israelites "rejoice" in him, as we shall see, if we remember how he treated the Band Nadhir, the Banft Qainuqi', the Banil Quraizah and other Jewish communities.

5. Some refer chapter v. 16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word ntahamaddtm, " delights," " delightfulriesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root. But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun, as the use of the plural here shows. The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea ix. 6, 16 ; 1 Kings xx. 6 ; Lam. i. 10, 11; ii. 4; Joel iv. 5 ; Isa. lxiv. 10 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19; Ezek. xxiv.

16, 21, 25. In the last passage (Ezek. xxiv. 16, "the desire of thine eyes") it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (compare ver. 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (ver. 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muljammad here as in the Song of Songs. In Arabic many words are formed from the same root x**., but they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad's name occurred in SGrah i, AI Fdtihah, ver. 1 : AI hamdo lillahi Rabbi Talamin (" Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds"). In the same way a Hindil might assert that the name of R£m or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur'in, because in Stirah xxx, Ar Rilm, ver. 1, we read j^pf ^.lii, " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give RUm as if derived from the root rdm. This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgement.

4. In Isaiah xxi. 7, Muslims hold that the words " a chariot^1 (or troop) of asses " are a prediction of the coming of Christ, who entered Jerusalem riding on an ass, and that " a (troop or) chariot of camels " refers to Muhammad, since he always rode on a camel. But the context shows that this chapter refers to neither Christ nor Muhammad. It is a prophecy of the fall of Babylon, as we learn from verse 9, and tells how word is brought by travellers of the capture of the city and the destruction of its idols, which took place under Darius in 519 b. c., and again in 513 b. c.

5. Muslims fancy that in Isaiah xlii. 1-4, they can find a prophecy about Muhammad. But if we may believe the accounts given us by Ibn Hishfim, At Tabari, Ibn Athir, the K&tibu'l Wdqidi, the Rauzatu s §afd, and other Muhammadan authors and works, the description of a man who was gentle and peaceable does not apply to him who is called " the Prophet with the Sword". Moreover in Matt. xii. 15-21, we are

[' " A riding-party " would probably be the right word.]

distinctly^1 told that the prophecy refers to Christ, and was fulfilled in Him. The Christian faith is that of the " isles " and coastlands of the Mediterranean, which are those primarily referred to in ver. 4.

4. In the same chapter (Isa. xlii) vers. 10, 11, 12, the mention of Kedar leads some to argue that this word means the Arabs, and hence that a reference is made to their conversion to Isllm. But the "new song" in ver. 10 can hardly denote the new Muslim mode of worship, especially as no singing is permitted in it. Kedar was doubtless the name of one of the Arab tribes, but not a few of them (Himyar, Ghassin, Rabi'ah, Najr&n, Hlrah, &c.) had embraced Christianity before they were compelled to become Muslims, or be expelled from Arabia. Doubtless they will be Christians again some day. These verses are a continuation of what is said in vers. 1-4, and must refer to the spread of Christianity even in Arabia, as we are told it would spread in the islands also, and among " ye that go down to the sea" (ver. 10). The expression "My Servant" in ver. 1 is explained in ch. xlix. 3, as meaning " Israel", that is, doubtless, the " Israel^1 of God", those who believe in Christ. He Himself is the " Head^2 of the body, the Church". Hence in Isa. lii. 13, the ancient Jewish commentators explain the same phrase as meaning the Promised Messiah. Christ came from Israel, and represented it. Muhammad did not.

5. I sa. liii. is also claimed as referring to Muhammad, because, (1) being born in Arabia, he was "a root out of a dry ground " : (2) " they made his grave with the wicked," for he was buried in Medinah : (3) the words " he shall see his seed " were fulfilled regarding him • (4) he did "divide the spoil with the strong", that is, with the Ans&rs : (5) he fulfilled the words "he poured out his soul unto death"; since he did undoubtedly die, while many Muslims deny Christ's death, and hold that He ascended to Heaven without dying. But (1) the whole of verses 5, 6, 7, 8, are absolutely

1 Gal. vi. 16. * Col. i. 18.

inapplicable to Muhammad or to anyone but Christ. (2) Half of verses 9 and 12 do not in any way suit Muhammad. (3) As to dividing the spoil, this was to take place after death, which is true in a spiritual sense of Christ (since only after His Resurrection and Ascension did the Gentiles begin to enter His Kingdom), but not of Muhammad. (4) Why the people of Medinah, the Ans&rs who received and fought for Muhammad, should be called wicked, rather than those of Mecca who rejected him, is not easily seen. (5) Ail parts of the prophecy were spiritually fulfilled in Christ, whereas many portions of it cannot possibly refer to anyone else, least of all to a victorious warrior like Muhammad. Besides this, the ancient Jewish commentators understood the chapter as a prophecy regarding the Promised Messiah. The whole of the New Testament shows how this prophecy and the similar one in Ps. xxii. were fulfilled in Christ alone.

12. Isaiah liv. 1 is supposed to be a prophecy of Muhammad's birth from the descendants of Ishmael. It predicts that more people will become his followers and thus be brought to God than were converted by all the prophets of Israel. In reality, however, the prophecy has two meanings, a literal and a spiritual. The literal meaning is that the Jews will be rescued from Babylon and brought back to Jerusalem. This took place under Cyrus, beginning in 536 b. c. The spiritual meaning is taught by St. Paul (Gal. iv. 21-31). There we see that it was fulfilled when the Gentiles, long devoted to idolatry and estranged from God, began to receive the Gospel of Christ. Incidentally, moreover, St. Paul in that passage shows that Hagar's descendants were not to be preferred to Sarah's spiritual offspring.

13; Isa. lxiii. 1-6. Muslims say that the warrior here mentioned is Muhammad, as he was " the prophet with the sword ". They think that Bozrah mentioned in ver. 1 is the famous city of Basrah. But ver. 1 shows that Bozrah is in Edom. It is now called A1 Busairah, and is a little south of the Dead Sea. If we compare ver. 5 with Isa. lix. 15, 16, it will be seen that the warrior is the Lord of Hosts Himself, who has punished Edom for its sins. The imagery is used again in Rev. xix. 11-16, where the warrior is explained as the Kalimatiilldh, who will finally punish the wicked and put down all enemies under His feet (1 Cor. xv. 25).

14. Isaiah lxv. 1-6. This passage is asserted to be a prophecy of the conversion of the Arabs to Muhammad. The second and following verses are said to tell of the sins of the Jews and Christians, who were therefore rejected by God. In reality, however, ver. 1 is a prophecy of the conversion of many of the Gentiles to Christ. The sins of some of the Jews are mentioned in vers. 2-6, but vers. 8-10 tell us that God will not finally reject the whole Jewish nation (compare Rom. xi). Nothing is said of the Christians, and not a word about Muhammad.

15. Dan. ii. 45 contains a prophecy of the rise and spread of Islim, in the opinion of some Muslims. They say that the four kingdoms mentioned in that chapter are the Chal&aean, the Median, the Kayanian (or Persian), and the Macedonian. Alexander the Great shattered the Persian Empire, but under the Sas&nian kings it revived. At one time strong, at another weak, it lasted until Muhammad's birth in the time of Khusrau Anilshiravin. But soon after Muhammad's death the Muslim hosts overthrew the Persian Empire, conquered Persia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and " filled the whole land " (vers. 44, 45). This explanation, however, does not agree with ihe facts of history for the simple reason that (1) there was no Median Empire after the Babylonian (Darius the Mede—Dan. v. 31 ; vi; ix. 1—"was made king" of Chaldaea only, i. e. the region around Babylon, reigned only part of one year, and was viceroy of Cyrus the Great), and hence the Persian was the second Empire (Dan. viii. 3, 4, 20) : (2) The Macedonian was the third Empire (Dan. viii. 5, 7, 21) : (3) The fourth was the Roman Empire (Dan. ii. 40), which was the greatest of them all, and which the Muslim version of history entirely omits: (4) The revived Persian Empire under the Sisinians might be counted as the fifth, or as the third Empire, but could not be the fourth, and yet the prophecy refers to what happened during the fourth Empire (Dan. ii. 40, 44 ; vii. 7, 19, 23). That the Macedonian Empire was the third, and not the fourth, is clear from what is actually said about it, for it overthrew the Persian Empire (Dan. viii. 5, 7, 21), and, after Alexander's death, was divided into four (Dan. viii. 8, 22) and thus gradually faded into insignificance and was swallowed up by the Roman Empire. It was in the time of the Roman Empire, when it ruled nearly the whole civilized world, that Christ was born in part of that Empire. The kingdom which He set up was " not of this world " (John xviii. 36; Luke i. 31-33; Dan. vii. 13, 14, 27) and did not spread through the sword, like all earthly kingdoms. Christ called Himself the Son of Man, and thus showed that He was the person mentioned in Dan. vii. 13. His is the kingdom which is described as the stone that filled the whole earth (Dan. ii. 45). When He returns, to Him every knee shall bow (Phil. ii. 9-11).

16. Habakkuk iii. 3. Muslims seem to fancy that " The Holy One from Mount Paran " was Muhammad. But we find that the verse goes on to say " His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of His praise ", where the use of the singular pronoun clearly shows that the " Holy One " is God, who is mentioned at the beginning of the verse. We have already seen that Mt. Paran is in the Sinaitic Peninsula, and not anywhere near Mecca. Teman was a district and town in Edom, the town of this name being not far from Sela (Petra), and only a few days' journey south of Jericho. Mt. Paran and Teman were therefore close to one another, and both were hundreds of miles north of Mecca and very much nearer Jerusalem.

The fact that Teman is spoken of as descended from Esau, father of the Edomites (Gen. xxxvi. 11, 19), confirms what we learn from historians, geographers, and the statements of the prophets (Jer. xlix. 7, 20; Ezek. xxv. 13 ; Amos i. 11, 12 ; Obadiah, vers. 8, 9, 10) regarding the situation of the town, which bore the same name. If after this Muslim theologians persist in stating that Teman is in some way connected with I slim, we must ask them to notice how in Obadiah God threatens Teman with utter destruction. But we Christians do not apply this prophecy to I slim, because we know that there is no connexion whatever between I slim and Teman.

17. Haggai ii. 7. Here Muslims argue that "the Desire of all nations " means Muhammad, because the Hebrew word meaning "desire" (rnDn hemddh— comes from the same root as does the word " Muhammad". But it is admitted that, even in Arabic, not every word derived from that root refers to Muhammad, still less does every such Hebrew word. This very word kemd&h is" employed again in Dan. xi. 37, "the desire of women," and there probably denotes a false god worshipped by the heathen. We cannot therefore logically found any argument upon the form of the word. Nor can it be shown that the nations of the world " desired " Muhammad's advent, for the Muham- madan conquest of many lands was hardly to be considered a desirable thing for the conquered, though the Arabs desired to make such conquests. "The Desire of all nations " denotes either (1) " the desirable things of all nations ", referring to the silver and gold mentioned in ver. 8; or (2) " the choice of all the Gentiles ", that is " the election of grace " (Rom. xi. 5) from among them, i. e. the Christian Church; or (3) the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who did come to His Temple, and in Jerusalem by His Atonement gave peace (Hag. ii. 9; Mai. .iii. 3; Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42; Luke xi 36 ; John xiv. 27 ; xvi. 33 ; xx. 19, 21, 26) to His people.

The Shi'ahs have founded arguments in support of their own ideas upon a few passages in the Old Testament. Although the Sunnis do not agree with them in this, yet it may be worth while to consider their arguments, because they really have as solid or as unstable a foundation as those which we have already dealt with.

18. The Shi'ahs say that Gen. xvii. 20, "Twelve princes shall he beget," is a prophecy of the twelve I minis, whom they hold to be the legitimate successors of Muhammad. In answer to this we need do nothing but refer to Gen. xxv. 13-16, where we are told that the promise was fulfilled in the twelve sons born to Ishmael, whose namfes are there given, and who are distinctly called " twelve princes" in the end of ver. 16.

19. They also hold that Jer. xlvi. 10, " The Lord, the Lord of Hosts, hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates," is a prophecy of the murder of Husain at Karbali, believing that in some way his death was a sacrifice for sin and an atonement. But the second verse of this very same chapter states that the reference is to " the army of Pharaoh-neco king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah", 606 b.c. It can hardly be supposed by any Muslim that the slaughter of a host of Egyptians, who were then heathens, was an atonement for sin. The word rendered " sacrifice " also means "slaughter" (as is evident from such passages as Isa. xxxiv. 6-8; Ezek. xxxix. 17-21 ; Zeph. i. 7, 8). Besides all this, KarbalS could in no sense be said by Jeremiah to be " in the north country ".

We now pass to the New Testament, in order to consider with due care and attention the passages in it which Muslims claim as prophecies relating to Muhammad.

1. Matt. iii. 2, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." These words of John the Baptist, repeated by

Jesus (Matt. iv. 17), are said by Muslims to be a prediction of the establishment of the power of Isl&m (see also Matt. xiii. 31, 32), the Quran being the Law of the Kingdom. But, in order to understand what is meant by " The Kingdom of Heaven", or, as it is also called, " The Kingdom of God," we must consider all the passages in the New Testament in which the words occur. One of these is Matt. xii. 28, where Christ says, " If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the Kingdom of God come upon you." In Mark ix. 1, Christ tells His disciples that some of those who stood there should not taste of death till they saw the Kingdom of God come with power. In some verses this Kingdom is spoken of as already established in Christ's lifetime, in others to be established after His death. It was begun before He was crucified, but its perfection is to be when He comes again to judge the world (Dan. vii. 13, 14; Rev. xi. 15). Meanwhile it is spreading daily through the preaching of the Gospel and the invitation being given to all men to enter it (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). It is not a kingdom of this world (John xviii. 36); it does not come with worldly pomp and show (Luke xvii. 20); it belongs to the humble-minded (Matt. v. 3), not to the proud; men can enter it only through a new, spiritual birth (John iii. 3,5); it is not possible for the wicked to be in it (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. v. 5). Hence it can hardly be identified with the dominion founded by Muhammad and his successors.

2. Matt. xvii. 11. Some Muslims take the words " Elias (Elijah) indeed cometh" here as a prediction of Muhammad's advent. But Christ goes on to say, '' Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they listed " (ver. 12). The next verse adds, " Then understood the disciples that He spake unto them of John the Baptist" (ver. 13). Of course John the Baptist was not Elijah in person, for transmigration of souls (^iLi) is not taught in the Bible; therefore he answered as he did (John i. 21)

Q

when asked whether he was Elijah or not. But he was Christ's forerunner, appointed before birth to go before Him "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke i. 17), as the Angel Gabriel had predicted (Luke i. 19), and in this sense, as Malachi had foretold (Mai. iv. 5), he came as Elijah, living in much the same way (Matt. iii. 4) as the latter had done, often in the desert (1 Kings xvii. 1-6).

3. Matt. xx. 1-16. In this parable some Muslims say that the "morning" represents the Jewish, "noon" the Christian, and " evening" the Muhammadan dispensation. But the "even" of ver. 8 is the time mentioned in ch. xix. 28, as "the Regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory", that is to say, at the end of the ages, when the Lord Jesus Christ shall come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory to judge the world (Matt. xxiv. 30, 31 ; Mark xiii. 26, 27; Luke xxi. 27; Rev. i. 7; xx. 11-15). This is clear from the fact that Matt. xx. begins with " for ", and that the parable ends with the words, " So the last shall be first, and the first last", which are repeated with little change from the end of the preceding chapter. The evening of the world's history is now drawing nigh, and both Christians and Muslims expect the return of Christ to take place very soon. As He rules up to the end of the world, and is then to judge the quick and the dead at His appearance (2 Tim. iv. 1), there is no room for the Isl&mic dispensation. It cannot therefore be predicted in this parable.

3. Matt. xxi. 33-44 (see also Mark xii. 1-11; Luke xx. 9-18). Muslims argue that here Christ is prophesying of Muhammad's coming and the success of his arms. They admit that the householder is God, and that Christ in this parable is speaking of Himself when He mentions the householder's son. They admit that in the parable Christ speaks of Himself as slain by the Jews. It would be well if they would ponder these admissions. If Christ said this, then they must confess that He is the Son of God, and that He died for men's sins. If this is admitted, there is no need to find a prophecy about Muhammad. But if they do not admit that this was said by Christ, then they have no right to assert that He spoke this parable at all, and hence its meaning is of no importance to them. Here then their argument at once breaks down. It should be noted also that in the parable there is no messenger sent after the Son. As the Muslims grant that the servants whom the householder sends are God's prophets, it is evident from the parable that no prophet was to be sent after Christ. Here for a second time their whole argument is refuted. Again, Christ quotes the statement about "the stone which the builders rejected " from Ps. cxviii. 22, and in Acts iv. 11, 12, Peter explains that the Psalmist meant Christ Himself by this stone.1 He says, " He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders." Therefore the builders were the Jews of His own time, and not Abraham and Ishmael, who built the Ka'bah, as the Muhammadan story asserts. The parable said that the Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and "given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. xxi. 43). Muslims hold that this means the sons of Ishmael; but the New Testament shows that it denotes the true believers in Christ, who are " an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession", chosen to show forth the excellences of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvellous light; " which in time past were no people, but now are the people of God : which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy" (1 Pet. ii. 9, 10). This passage teaches us also what were the fruits which the Lord God required to be produced. The same lesson is taught in Titus ii. 14 (compare Gal. v. 22-24). The "other husbandmen" to whom the vineyard was to be given are explained to be the Christian Church, and the vineyard is the Kingdom of 1 See also 1 Pet. ii. 4-8.

Q 2

God (Matt. xxi. 43 explains ver. 41). Therefore they cannot be Muhammad and his disciples. Since the stone is Christ, it cannot be Hagar, or the Black Stone in the wall of the Ka'bah, nor can it be Muhammad. Opposition to Christ is therefore what the parable shows to be displeasing to God, and in the end fatal and ruinous to all His enemies. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in a.d. 70, about forty years after the Crucifixion of Christ, explained part of its meaning. Some Muslims fancy that the " Lord of the Vineyard" who was to come (Matt. xxi. 40) was Muhammad, But this cannot be maintained, for Christ (ver. 37) was the Son of the Lord of the Vineyard, and no one imagines Him to be Muhammad's son. It is only by wresting words from their places and omitting to consider the context and the explanations given in other parts of the Bible that an appearance of plausibility can be given to the Muslim view regarding this parable.

3. Mark i. 7. Muslims often say, " The Injil contains the words of Jesus, and accordingly we find that in Mark i. 7 He prophesied of Muhammad, saying, ' There cometh after Me he that is mightier than I,' &c." This shows how hopelessly impossible it is for Muslims to find any prophecy regarding Muhammad; for ver. 6 of this chapter tells us that these words were not spoken by Jesus, but by John the Baptist. Moreover, we learn from John i. 26-34, that John spoke of Christ, not of Muhammad. The context shows this clearly (see also Matt. iii. 11-14 ; Luke iii. 16, 17). If it be said that Christ was already in the world, and that therefore He could not be said to come after John, the answer is that He began to preach only after John had been cast into prison (Mark i. 14: compare Matt. iv. 12, 17) and had thus ended his ministry, for he was soon after beheaded in prison by Herod's command.

4. John i. 21. " Here," say some among the Muslims, " we have a clear mention of Muhammad. The Jews mentioned three prophets in succession, Christ,

Elijah, and 'the Prophet', i.e. Muhammad, and J ohn did not contradict them. ' The Prophet' is Muhammad, who is foretold in Deut. xviii. 18. He cannot be Christ or Elijah, who are mentioned quite separately." But we have already seen that Deut. xviii. 18 cannot refer to Muhammad, but does refer to Christ. Hence "the Prophet" in this verse is Christ. The Jews were reckoning backwards. They thought John the Baptist might be the promised Messiah. When he denied this, they asked whether he was the Messiah's forerunner, Elijah (Mai. iv. 5 ; Matt. xvii. 10; Mark ix. 11). John explained that he was not Elijah in person, nor had the latter returned to earth, as the Jews thought he would (though John was the person to whom Mai. iv. 5 pointed; see Matt. xi. 14). Being then unable to understand who he was, the Jews asked whether he was " the prophet ", referring to Deut. xviii. 18. With regard to the meaning of this latter prophecy there was at that time some difference of opinion among the Jews. Many rightly understood that it indicated the promised Messiah, as is clear from John vi. 14. But others did not think so, as we see from John vii. 40, 41, supposing that the prophet mentioned in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, was another forerunner of the promised Messiah. The whole passage (John i. 19-28) shows that the questioners wanted to learn whether John the Baptist was the Messiah, or one of His forerunners. It would not have been reasonable to ask whether John the Baptist was a supposed prophet coming hundreds of years after the Messiah, when the Messiah Himself had not yet declared Himself such, and was not recognized by them.

7. John iv. 21 is supposed by some to be a declaration that Jerusalem would be the Holy City and the Qiblah no longer, but that its place would be taken by another city, which, the Muslims say, must be Mecca. But in vers. 23, 24, Christ Himself explains the meaning of His own words, by saying that true and acceptable worship does not depend upon the place where it is offered, but upon the state of the worshipper's heart. Hence He does away with the possibility of there ever afterwards being a true Qiblah on earth.

8. Johnxiv. 30. " The Prince of the World cometh." Many Muslims consider that these words of Christ are a prediction of the coming of Muhammad. But, in the first place, the context shows that here Christ was not speaking of a prophet who was to come after Him, for He adds, "and he hath nothing in Me." This shows that the person spoken of was an enemy of all that is good; which cannot be said of any prophet. Secondly, when we compare other passages of Scripture where this or other equivalent titles are given to the person here spoken of we see that he is Satan. See Luke x. 18; John xii. 31; xvi. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2 ; vi. 11, 12.

9. John xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv. 26 ; xvi. 13, &c. Muslims assert that the Paraclete here mentioned by Christ is Muhammad, whose name they fancy to be a translation of this word. They contend that the prophecy was fulfilled in Muhammad, since he received the Qur'in from the Angel Gabriel (whom Muslims imagine to be the Holy Spirit), and bore witness to Christ (John xv. 26) and glorified Him (John xvi. 14) as a prophet, as born of a Virgin, as a worker of miracles, as having ascended up to Heaven without dying, as not God's Son, and as never having claimed to be such, and as having had the Gospel brought to Him. That the early Christians understood Christ to have promised that another great prophet should come is, the Muslims assert, clear from the fact that M&nl claimed to be the Paraclete, and was on that account accepted by many Christians as having come in fulfilment of this prophecy. But it is quite impossible for any scholar and for anyone who carefully studies the New Testament to accept this explanation of our Lord's words in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of St. John's Gospel. For:

(1) First of all, the word Paraclete does not mean anything at all like "Muhammad". It means the " Comforter " or " Sustainer and also the " Advocate " (j^Jl). The first of these titles is clearly unsuited to the " Prophet with the Sword ", and the Qur'án itself denies the title of Advocate to all but God Himself (Súrahs xvii, Al Asra or Banú Isrá'il, ver. 56 : iv. An Nisá', ver. 83). Hence Muhammad cannot be the Paraclete. (2) In the New Testament the title Paraclete is applied only to the Holy Spirit, as in these chapters (John xiv. 16, 17, 26 ; xv. 26; xvi. 13), and also by implication to Christ (John xiv. 16 : see 1 John ii. 1). (3) The Paraclete of whom Christ here speaks is therefore not a man, but a spirit, the Spirit of Truth, invisible : He was then dwelling with Christ's disciples and was to be in their hearts (John xiv. 17 ; xvi. 14V

4. He was to be sent by Christ (John xv. 26 ; xvi. 7), which Muslims cannot admit concerning Muhammad.

5. His work was not to gather armies and gain victories with earthly weapons, but to convict men of sin, the very essence of sin being disbelief in Christ (xvi. 9).

6. His teaching was to glorify not Himself, but Christ, and was not to be His own, but what Christ gave Him (John xvi. 14, 15). (7) To teach men to deny the truth of Christ's Sonship, which Christ had affirmed on oath (Mark xiv. 61), and to oppose belief in His Divine Nature, which (as we have seen) is taught in both Old Testament and New (for example in Isa. ix. 6 ; Ps. xiv. 6; John x. 30; Heb! i), is not to glorify Christ, but to oppose Him. (8) To deny that Christ was crucified and thereby atoned for the sins of the whole world is to deny another of the most vital doctrines of the whole Bible (Ps. xxii; Isa lii. 13 and liii; Matt. xx. 19. &c. &c.), for on the fact of the Atonement made in His death on the cross depends the salvation of all men. (9) Denial of His Crucifixion implies denial of His Resurrection, upon which the whole Christian faith is based (1 Cor. xv. 17-19). As therefore Muhammad contradicts the Injil in these and other leading doctrines, and thereby utterly opposes the faith which Christ taught and which He bade His disciples teach all nations (Matt, xxviii. 18-20), it is impossible to say that Muhammad fulfilled the prophecy that the Paraclete would bring to the remembrance of the Apostles what Christ had taught them (John xiv. 26). (10) To appeal to Mini's claim to be the Paraclete in proof that Muhammad was such, is a strange way of arguing. If we Christians were to compare Muhammad with Mani and the Qur'in with the Artang} which book Mini claimed had been brought him from heaven, and was such that no one could produce another like it, our Muslim brethren would be much offended. Let it be noticed that the writer of these pages carefully abstains from instituting any such comparison. But it is clear that the best instructed Christians refused to accept Mini principally because they knew (1) that the prophecies regarding the Paraclete were such that they could be fulfilled by no man, but only by the Holy Spirit, and that (2) these prophecies had already been fulfilled by the descent of the Holy Spirit on the fiftieth day after the Crucifixion of Christ (Acts ii. 1-36). This shows that the teaching of the New Testament in Mini's time was just what it is now. Christ's only prophecies about prophets who would come after Him were not such as to induce Christians to accept any who claimed to be prophets (Matt. xxiv. 11, 24 ; Mark xiii. 22 : compare Matt, vii 15), hence they refused to accept Mini, whom Muslims also hold to have been a false prophet. (11) The Paraclete was to dwell in the hearts of all true Christians (John xvi. 14: compare 1 Cor. vi. 19; Rom. viii. 9), which cannot be said of Muhammad. (12) Christ promised that the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 26), should descend from Heaven upon the disciples within a few days of His Ascension (Acts i. 5), and bade them not begin their task of evangelizing the world (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) until the

1 The fact that Mani was a painter and that the Artang was full of pictures is mentioned in the Shdhndmah, but not by A1 Ya'qfibi, A1 BirGni, Ash ShahristSni, and other Arabic writers of authority.

Paraclete had come upon them, but to remain at Jerusalem until this promise was fulfilled (Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4, S). Did this mean that they should wait -until Muhammad's claim to be a prophet was made, nearly 600 years afterwards ? By that time they were all dead. Moreover, as we have seen, the promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii), just after Christ's Ascension. Then, rightly understanding their duty, they began their task of preaching the Gospel throughout the world. It is clear therefore that in the promise of the coming of the Paraclete no reference to Muhammad can be found.

8. In 1 John iv. 2, 3, some have endeavoured to prove that " the Spirit of God " denotes Muhammad. But no true Muslim ever gives Muhammad such a" title. Some say that, in accordance with ver. 2, Muhammad taught that Jesus Christ had "come in the flesh" because he denied Christ's Deity and affirmed that He was a mere man. But " to come in the flesh" is an unmeaning phrase, if applied to a mere man. In reality the verse condemns the Docetic view that Christ had only a phantom body, and not a real human one. The belief that Christ was a mere man is condemned in scathing terms in this very Epistle (1 John ii. 22, 23; v. 5, 9-13, 20). Hence the deduction which scholars draw from 1 John iv. 2, 3, is not one which in any way confirms Muhammad's claims.

9. Jude 14, 15. Some people have ventured to assert that " the Lord " in this passage is Muhammad, and that the " executing judgement" denotes his being " the Prophet with the Sword " and waging war with his enemies. But no true Muslim can hold this view, for the title " the Lord " belongs to God, and in the Qur'an (compare Sttrah ix, At Taubah, ver. 31) is given to Him only. Enoch's prophecy which is quoted by Jude refers to Christ's second Advent, when He will judge the world (Dan. vii. 13, 14; Matt. xxiv. 29-51; 2 Thess. i. 6-10; Rev. i. 7; xix. 11-21). The title " Lord" is often applied to Christ in the

New Testament, and correctly, as we learn from Phil. ii. 9-11.

12. Rev. ii. 26-29. Some Muslims claim this also as a prediction of " the Prophet with the Sword ". But if so, it would follow that Muhammad had received power from Christ, because he had kept Christ's works, i.e. obeyed His commands, unto the end. Muslims hold that Muhammad was a greater Prophet than Christ, and therefore they cannot really believe that these words refer to Muhammad. It must be noticed that the speaker in these verses is Christ, and that He speaks of God as His Father. The meaning of the verse is evident from a comparison with vers. 7, 11, 17; and ch. iii, vers. 5, 12, 21, in which the phrase " He that overcometh " is repeated again and again. The context shows that the promise is general, to everyone who gains the victory, and that the victory is not over men, but over one's own sins and the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

These are all the important passages which Muslims fancy contain prophecies concerning Muhammad. It is quite clear that not a single one of them all does constitute a prediction about him. Nor does the New Testament lead us to expect any other Dispensation after the Christian, before the return of Christ and the complete establishment of His everlasting Kingdom. This particular proof of Muhammad's Divine Commission therefore has completely broken down. It is true that certain people have been astounded at noticing the fact that in Rev. ix. 4, these words occur : " And it was said unto them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree, but only such men as have not the seal of God on their foreheads." For they tell us that this prophecy was actually fulfilled when the Khalifah Abti Bakr sent out the armies of Isl&m to conquer Syria. It is certainly very remarkable to find in two Arabic historians, both of whom were probably unacquainted with this passage, statements which remind the reader of it. Shaikh Jal&lu'ddin Suytitl[1] quotes A1 Baihaqi and others as affirming, on the authority of 'Imranu'l Jtinl, that AbO Bakr, when placing Yazld ibn Abl Sufydn in command of the army that was starting for Syria, said to him : " Ye shall not slay a woman or a child or a decrepit old man, nor shall ye cut down fruit-bearing trees, nor shall ye lay waste cultivated ground, nor shall ye slaughter sheep or beast of burden except for food, nor shall ye split a date-palm, nor burn it: nor shalt thou deal treacherously, nor shalt thou be cowardly." The Kitibu'l Wiqidl also [1]relates the same thing at greater length. He tells us that on that occasion Abtl Bakr said to Yazld : " When ye shall have prevailed over your enemies, do not slay a lad or a very old man or a woman or a babe, nor approach a date-palm, nor burn a cornfield, nor cut down fruit-bearing trees, nor slaughter beasts, unless a beast for food, nor shall ye deceive when ye have made an agreement; nor shall ye break the compact when ye have made peace. And ye shall pass by communities in cells, monks who fancy that they are serving God, therefore let them alone, unto Him have they not secluded themselves, and they are satisfied for themselves with Him : and ye shall not pull down their cells, nor shall ye slay them. And ye shall find another community, the sect of Satan and worshippers of crosses, who have shaved the middle of their heads until they are, as it were, nests of the Qatd-bird[2] (iwii). Therefore with your swords strike through the middle of their heads, until they return to Islim or ' give the yizyah-tax out of hand, and are humble'. And to God have I commended [3] you." There is no doubt that the resemblance between the prophecy in the Book of Revelation and the command thus given to the Arabs, who came forth from the land of the locusts and in swarms almost as numerous, is very great. But the passage contains nothing about a prophet, and so cannot be said to support Muhammad's claims. Nor can any true Muslim adduce this chapter with any satisfaction, even if it be granted that it is a prophecy which was fulfilled a few years after Muhammad's death.

the expedition to Tabûk, Muhammad himself gave the same directions (in a shorter form) to his troops. See Part III, ch. vii.

CHAPTER III

CAN THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE QUR'AN BE DEEMED MIRACULOUS AND BE CONSIDERED A PROOF THAT IT IS GOD'S WORD?

Our Muslim brethren assert that the eloquence and the beauty of the style of the Qur'&n are a miracle, and that thus the Qur'&n itself alone is a sufficient proof of Muhammad's prophetic office and Divine commission. They tell us that he could neither read nor write, and hence could not himself compose such a book. Hence they conclude that it must have been Divinely revealed and sent down to him from Heaven. Each prophet, they say, had some special sign granted to him as a proof that he had been sent from God ; but the signs given to prophets varied with the age in which they lived. In Moses' time the magicians had great influence, hence the miracles which he wrought in Egypt were similar to their tricks in appearance, though really performed and very much more surprising. In Jesus' time the art of healing had made great progress, hence He performed superhuman works of healing. In Muhammad's time eloquence was highly prized among the Arabs, hence the book he was given excelled all others in its eloquence and its poetry. In proof of this peerlessness (¡l^cl) of the Qur'&n they quote the challenge to produce a verse like one contained in it (SCtrahs ii. 21 and xvii. 91).

But when this argument is considered with the care and the respect which are its due, we do not think it is very convincing. In the first place, there are some famous books in the world which were composed by men who could not read or write and which are, in their own languages, quite unrivalled. The Rig-Veda in India was composed between 1,000 and 1,500years b. c., long before any written characters were known in that country. It is a very large work, much larger than the Qur'in. It was composed not by one man, but by several, but they had no amanuenses to whom they could dictate their verses. In the Greek language there are two eloquent poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are commonly ascribed to a blind poet named Homer. Blind men in that age were not generally able to read or write. It is possible that there did exist in Homer's time a Greek alphabet, but it is not considered probable that he made use of it or dictated his poems to scribes, more especially as he was a poor man who made his livelihood by going from place to place to recite his poems', in the same way as do storytellers in Eastern lands to-day.

Moreover, it is by no means certain that Muhammad was unable to read and write. The opinion that this was so rests almost entirely upon the term An-nabiyyu I Ummi Q^T^LO in Silrah vii, Al A'rdf, vers. 156, 158. But this does not mean "the Unlettered Prophet" but " the Gentile Prophet", i.e. the prophet who is not an Israelite, but is from among the Gentiles (¿JI^T^. This is clear from Silrah iii, Al'Imrdn, ver. 19, where the command is given to Muhammad: " And say thou to those who have been brought the Book and to the Gentiles " Here it is clear that the Arabs

are called "the Gentiles" in contradistinction from " the People of the Book". Hence the expression An Nabiyyu'l Ummi, " the Gentile Prophet," is equivalent to the title so common to-day, An Nabiyyul 'Arabi, "the Arabian Prophet/' and does not imply illiteracy. Scholars are also aware that there exist traditions, quoted by Muslim and Al Bukh&ri, which remove the stigma of want of education from Muhammad. For instance, we are told that, when the Treaty of Hudaibah was being signed, Muhammad took the pen from 'All, struck out the words in which 'All had designated him " the Apostle of God", and wrote instead with his own hand the words, " Son of 'Abdu'll&h." Tradition tells us too that, when he was dying, Muhammad called for pen and ink, to write a command appointing his successor, but that his strength failed him before writing-materials' were brought. This tradition rests on the statement of Ibn 'Abbis, but is supported by both A1 Bukh&ri and Muslim. As it is a subject of dispute between the Sunnl and the Shl'ah parties, we shall not attempt to decide upon its correctness. But the existence of such Traditions, supported by leading Traditionists, is of great weight, especially as there is nothing unlikely about them. Writing was not uncommon among the Arabs of Muhammad's time. It is well known that when some of the people of Mecca were captured by the people of Medinah, they purchased their freedom by teaching the latter to write. The very existence of the Seven Mu'allaqit (whether these were " suspended " in the Ka'bah, as As Suyflti thinks possible,1 or were kept in the treasury of the king of 'Uk&z as

Abti Ja'far Ahmad ibn Ism&'ll an Nahhds says 2), shows how customary it was for Arabian authors, then and earlier, to commit their works to writing. But even if Muhammad was not much in the habit of writing himself, yet we know from Tradition that Zaid ibn Th&bit was only one of several amanuenses whom he employed. The verses of the Qur'in, as dictated by Muhammad, were written upon the shoulder- blades of mutton, pieces of wood, or any other writing-materials that were at hand. The Cufic alphabet was used, destitute of diacritical points and vowel signs. In later times many of the various readings noticed by commentators arose from the imperfection of this alphabet. Whether tbe Cufic alphabet was that in which the Qur'&n is supposed to have been written on the " Preserved Tablet" in Heaven the writer of these pages does not know, but

1 Mudhkir ii. 240.

1 The original Arabic of this and the preceding reference is given in my (English) Original Sources of the Qur'dn, pp. 49, 50, note.

it is not very ancient, having been derived from the Estrangelo Syriac, which itself arose from the old Phoenician letters.

When any verse was dictated by Muhammad and written down, it was soon learnt by heart by pious Muslims. But occasionally, before this could be done, some verses were lost, if we may credit Tradition. For instance, in the Mishkdtu I Masabih, the Tra- ditionist Muslim informs us that 'Ayishah said: "Among^1 what was sent down of the Qur'&n were ten well-known (verses about) Sucking, which prohibited : then they were annulled by five well-known ones. Then the Apostle of God deceased, and they are in what is recited of the Qur'dn." It is evident that, at the time when 'Ayishah said this, these verses were still recited by some of the Reciters, who had not yet heard that they had been annulled. But they are not found in the present text of the Qur'in. Muslim tells us, on the authority of 'Umar, that the latter said; " Verily^2 God sent Muhammad with the truth, and He sent down upon him the Book, accordingly the Verse of Stoning was part of what God Most High sent down: the Apostle of God stoned, and we stoned after him, and in the Book of God stoning is the adulterer's due." The Verse of Stoning ran thus: "And^3 the old man and the old woman, if they have committed adultery, then stone them both assuredly." But it is no longer to be found in the text of the Qur'dn. Instead of this we have in SO rah xxiv. 1-5 the penalty of 100 stripes for this crime. Elsewhere Ibn Majah informs us that 'Ayishah said : '' The verse of stoning and of sucking came down . . . and its sheet was under my bed: when therefore the Apostle of God died, and we were occupied about his death, a tame animal came in and ate it." Muslim quotes Abfi Mtisa A1 Ash'ari

1 Kiidlun Nikdh, p. 265 of the Mishkdt.

5 Mishkdt, Kitdbul HudUd, p. 301.

.¿Ii? L^^U Ljj Iji ^lITj s

A man becomes " old " (a shaikh) at fifty, according to the Arabs.

as saying to 500 Reciters of the Qur'&n at Basrah: " Verily we used to recite a Silrah which in length and severity we used to compare to Bar&'ah,1 and I have forgotten .it, except that I remember of it (the words) 'Ye relied', &c. And we used to recite a Silrah which we were wont to compare with one of the Rosaries: and I have forgotten it, except that of it I remember (the words) ' O ye who', &c."

It^2 is well known that Ubai added to his copy of the Qur'&n two short Silrah s, entitled respectively SHratul Khald and Stiratul Hafd (which latter is also known as Stiratul Qan&i), because he affirmed that they were parts of the original Qur'an, but had been omitted by 'Uthmin. On the other hand, Ibn Mas'ild omitted SOrahs i, cxiii, and cxiv. Some of the Shl'ah party say that certain words relating to 'Alt have been purposely omitted from the present text of the Qur'&n in Silrahs iv. 136, 164; v. 71 ; xxvi. 228. They say that in Silrah iii. 106, the word ummatin (ill), " nation," has been put for the original word aimmatin (CJA) " Im&ms" ; and that in Silrah xxv. 74, in place of the present reading, " And make us a model to the pious" (l.L.1 ¿>3;. J J LiilTj), the original and correct reading was, " And make for us from the pious an Im4m" (L.LJ ¿^¿jf ^ Qj JilTJ). They mention other changes which they assert were wilfully made in Stirahs xiii. 12 and xxiii. 39. Im&n Fakhru'ddin R&zi^3 accepts as possibly correct the tradition that in 'All's copy of the Quran, in Silrah xi. 20, in place of the present reading, " And a witness from Him readeth it, and before it was the Book of Moses, a leader and a mercy," the text ran thus: " And 4 a witness from

1 Another name for Sflratu'i Taubah, i.e. Sfirah ix, which contains 130 verses.

[* For most of the facts mentioned in this paragraph see Canon Sell's Recensions of the Qurdn, pp. 14 sqq. of edition of 1909.]

8 Khuldsatut Tafdsir, vol. ii, p. 383.

' ' 0-0 - ,0 , * f to

'¿sT* ^- H^® uU j^Li tjlzij *

r

Him, as a leader and a mercy, readeth it, and before it was the Book of Moses." The difference in the sense is considerable, for the Shi ah party explain that 'Ali is the " witness" here referred to, and this reading would apply the words, "a leader and a mercy," to him, and not to the Taur&t of Moses. Moreover,1 some assert that a whole Stirah, called the Sllratun Nurairt, has been purposely omitted from the Qur'ln. This SOrah is quoted at full length by MirzS. Muhsin of Kashmir, surnamed A1 Fini, in his Dabistan-i Maqahib uL-jj), pp. 220, 221.

We do not wish to express an opinion upon the correctness of the statements that some have made about the omission of part of the text of the Qur'dn or the addition of verses and Sfirahs to it after Muhammad's death. But when we are considering whether the Qur'&n is or is not a proof of Muhammad's Divine commission, it is our duty to be aware of the fact that such statements have been made and ably maintained by some learned Muslims.

We must now inquire in what manner the scattered SCirahs and verses of the Qur'£n were brought together into one book. In this matter also we appeal to Muslim authorities only.

A1 Bukh&ri informs us that, apparently about a year after Muhammad's death, the Qur'&n was first put together into one collection by Zaid ibn Th&bit at the command of the Khallfah Abti Bakr. Zaid's^1 own account, quoted by A1 BukMri, is this: " At the time of the slaughter of the people of A1 Yamamah, Abti Bakr sent for me, and lo! 'Umar ibnu'l Khattab was with him. Abii Bakr said : Verily 'Umar has come to me and has said, Truly the slaughter on the day of A1 Yam&mah was severe^2 among the Reciters of the Qur'an, and indeed I fear that there has been severe slaughter in the battlefields among the Reciters, therefore much of the Book is going away (i. e. being lost).

1 Mishkdlul Masdbih, p. 185. s It is said that 700 fell.

And I consider that thou shouldest give orders for the collecting of the Qur'&n. I said to cUmar; How wilt thou do a thing which the Apostle of God did not do ? Then 'Umar said: By God,1 this is good. And 'Umar did not desist from repeatedly urging me, until God expanded my breast thereto, and 1 have formed the same opinion as 'Umar has. Ab<i Bakr said : Verily thou art an intelligent young man, we do not distrust thee, and thou usest to write out the Revelation for the Apostle of God. Therefore search out the [various chapters and verses of] the Qur'in and gather it together. And, by God, if he had enjoined upon me the removal of one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier upon me than what he commanded me regarding the collecting of the Qur'cin. I said: How will ye do a thing which the Apostle of God did not do ? He said: By God, it is good. Accordingly Abti Bakr did not desist from repeatedly urging me, until God expanded my breast to that which AbO Bakr's breast and that of 'Umar had explained to him. Accordingly I sought out the Qur'in: I gathered it together from leafless palm- branches and thin white stones and men's breasts, until I found the end of Sdratu't Taubah 2 with Abit Khuzaimah the Ansiri, I found it not with anyone except him: ' There came unto you an Apostle from among yourselves,'3 unto the conclusion of Bard'ah. And the sheets were with Abil Bakr until God caused him to die, then with 'Umar during his life, then with Hafsah, 'U mar's daughter." This same account, except the last sentence, is quoted by^4 As Suyflti also.

Probably only this one copy of the Qur'cin was made by Zaid, and no other copy of the complete Qur&n existed anywhere except between its covers. Hence

[' Muslims consider it a sign of piety to use God's Name in a way which Christians deem blasphemous.]

J SOrah ix, also called Bardah. s Sflrah ix, 139-130.

4 Tdrikhu'l Khula/d, Lahore edition of a.h. 1304, p. 53.

R 2

others of the Muslims had to depend upon oral tradition for their knowledge of their sacred book, unless they happened to have a few portions written down. Being handed down orally and pronounced according to seven different dialects (the " Seven Readings "), there was danger lest the text should become so corrupt as to be altogether uncertain. Hence 'Uthmân, when engaged in the conquest of Armenia and Âçarbâîjân, was warned of this risk by Hudhaifah ibnu'l Yamân. Bukhârî's[1] account is as follows: "Hudhaifah therefore said to 'Uthmân : O Commander of the Faithful, restrain this people before they differ in the Book, as do the Jews and the Christians. Accordingly 'Uthmân sent to Hafsah, saying, Send us the sheets; that we may copy them into the volumes : then we shall return them unto thee. Hafsah therefore sent them to 'Uthmân. Then he commanded Zaid ibn Thâbit and 'Abdu'llâh ibnu'z Zubair and Sa'îd ibnu'l As and 'Abdu'llâh ibn I^ârith ibn Hishâm, and they copied them into the volumes. And 'Uthmân said to the company of the three Quraishites : When ye differ, ye and Zaid ibn Thâbit» in any portion of the Qur'£n, write it in the dialect of the Quraish, for verily it came down in their dialect. And they did so until, when they had copied the sheets into the volumes, 'Uthmân restored the sheets to Hafsah. And he sent to every region a volume from what they had copied, and commanded regarding everything of the Qur'ân besides it, in every sheet and volume, that it should be burned. Ibn Shahâb said : Khârijah ibn Zaid ibn Thâbit informed me that he heard Zaid ibn Thâbit say: When we copied the volume, there was missing from Sûratu'l Ahzâb[2] a verse which I used to hear the Apostle of God recite. Therefore we sought for it. And we found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thâbit the Ansârî from among the Believers, men who proved true to what they had covenanted with God. Therefore we inserted it in its Stirah in the volume."

From this it is evident that some difference existed between the revised copies of the Qur'dn issued by 'Uthmin and the original "sheets" (ulLH\) which Hafsah had had in her keeping. The fact that the Khalifah ordered all other early copies of parts of the Qur'&n except hers to be burnt is another proof that they did not in everything agree with his second edition of the Qur'in. Another proof that Hafsah's copy of the Qur'&n differed in some respects from 'Uthm&n's edition is found in the circumstance that it too was on that account burnt soon afterwards by Marw&n, when he was governor of Medinah. In spite, however, of this rather violent effort to prevent the occurrence of various readings in the text of the Qur'in, some may still be found, as we learn, for example, from A1 Baiziwi. (See, for instance, his commentary on Stirahs iii. 100 ; vi. 91 ; xix. 35 ; xxviii. 48; xxxiii. 6; xxxiv. 18; xxxviii. 22, &c.)1

On the other hand, the chief reason for concluding that the Qur'&nic text as it now exists is in nearly the same state in which Muhammad left it is that it contains in Stirah xxxiii. vers. 37, 38, 49-52, certain statements which throw a very clear light upon Muhammad's character. It is impossible to suppose that any of his followers would have ventured to invent these verses, and thus to depict their Master, had he not himself recited these words and ordered them to be considered part of the Qur'in. The incident referred to in vers. 37 and 38 of this Silrah is recorded by every one of Muhammad's biographers. Nothing has been more effective in turning men from Islam than these verses.

It is impossible for enlightened Muslims at the present day to explain away .this passage. Their 'Ulamd assert that the Qur'Sn is a miracle, that its style alone is a sufficient proof of Muhammad's Divine

1 In later chapters of this Treatise we shall occasionally refer to some of the various readings in the Qur'an.

commission, and that neither men nor angels could produce a single Silrah like any of those contained in the Qur'in. Every word of the Qur'&n, they say, was written down by the Pen on the Preserved Tablet in Heaven, ages before the creation of the world, and doubtless this passage among the rest. From the Divine Original the Qur'dn was brought down by the Angel Gabriel to the lowest Heaven on the Night of Power. He afterwards dictated it to Muhammad as occasion arose. Hence Ibn KhaldOn says: "Know[1]therefore that the Qur'&n descended in the language of the Arabs and in accordance with their style of eloquence, and all of them understood it and knew its various meanings in its several parts and in their relation to one another. And it continued to descend, section by section and in groups of verses, in order to explain the doctrine of the Unity of God and religious obligations, according as circumstances required. Some of these verses consist of articles of faith, and some of them of commandments for the regulation of conduct." In another passage he says : "All this[1] is a proof to thee that, amid the Divine Books, it was verily the Qur'&n with which our Prophet was inspired, in the form of something recited just as it is in its words and in its sections: whereas the Taur&t and the Injil, on the other hand, and all the other Heavenly Books, were revealed to the Prophets in the form of ideas when they were in a state of ecstasy, and they explained them, after their return to man's ordinary condition, in their own customary language: and therefore there is nothing miraculous in them." According to this learned writer therefore, both the language and the teaching of the Qur'&n are directly from God, while not the style and form, but the contents of the Old Testament and the New are due to inspiration. Hence, if our inquiry shows that the style of the Qur'&n is not miraculous, or at least that the peerlessness (jU^clJ of the Qur'án cannot be proved, it will not be an adequate reply to say, " The style of the Bible also is not peerless, nor does it prove the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures." We Christians do not claim that it does, and Ibn Khaldún's words show that even in his time Christians made no such claim. We hold that each Biblical writer used the style that was natural to him ; hence some wrote poetry, sublime and beautiful, some prose, direct and simple. The message, the doctrine, is God s ; the task of clothing it jn human language was that of the Prophet or Apostle, Psalmist, Evangelist or Historian whom God commissioned to write.

Of course learned men are now aware that the dialect of the Quraish is the old language of Mecca, not that of Paradise. Arabic is one of the Semitic tongues. Its sisters are Hebrew, Aramaic, ¿Ethiopic, Syriac, Assyrian, and other tongues of less importance. Arabic is an ancient and beautiful tongue, the Quraish dialect is the most cultivated of its dialects, and the style of many parts of the Qur'án is by all scholars admitted to be elegant and eloquent. Yet at the same time scholars rightly inform us that in the Qur'án there are to be found certain words which are not pure Arabic, but are taken from other languages and merely Arabicised. Among these are many names of people and places. Pharaoh i^y^j) is derived from Ancient Egyptian; A dam and Eden from a very old tongue called Akkadian; (Ibráhím) Abraham from Assyrian; the names Harüt and Mdrut, the words Sirdt, Hür, jinn, firdaus, are taken from Ancient Persian ; tabút, Tdghiit, zaküt, malakút, are Syriac; Hawari is /Ethiopic ; Hibr, sakinah, maün, Taurdt, Jahannam, are from the Hebrew ; and Injil is corrupted from the Greek. Hence the language of the Quran is not absolutely pure Arabic. We admit that there is no reason why Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Akkadian, ./Ethiopic, Persian, and Egyptian words should not have been written on the Preserved Tablet, if Arabic words really were so written. But we think that proof is needed of this last point.

Besides this, in the present text ot the Qur an there have been pointed out certain grammatical constructions which, if found anywhere else, would be admitted to be wrong. These are not many. We content ourselves with mentioning three.[1] (i) One is in Silrah ii. 192 : ¡Itfrijls. ¿L". (2) The second is in Stirah xiii. 28: ^jjr^jujf. (3) The third is in Sflrah xx. 66:

Besides all this, it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style[2] of the Qur'&n is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language. Some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu'allaqdt, or the Maq£m&t of Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion. Yet history informs us that there have been among the Arabs men of learning who have ventured to deny the peerlessness of the Qur'an in point of eloquence. Thus Sultan IsmS'll, in that part of his History in which he deals with Muslim affairs, tells us that 'is&' ibn Sabih, surnamed Abd Mtis£', and known as A1 Muzd&r, founder of the sect of the Muzdlriyyah, used to say that men were quite competent to produce such a book as the Qur'an in poetry, elegance, and eloquence. He too asserted that the Qur'&n had been created, about which point fierce disputes arose during the reign of the Khalifah A1 Ma'mun (a. h. 198-218: a. d. 813-833). The author of the book entitled Sharhul Mawajiq informs us that Muzdar used to say that it was possible for the Arabs to compose a work at once more elegant, more eloquent and better than the Qur'an. Ash Shahristani tells us that Muzdar annulled the Qur'dn's claim to be peerless in respect of elegance and eloquence (i^LiiKj i¿5LJl). An Nizám (¡.Uiin) says that the peer- lessness (jl^l) of the Qur'án lies in the information which it gives regarding the past and the future. If it is unrivalled, he says that the reason is because it refuses to permit the consideration of the claims of other books, and, forcibly or by discouraging them, prevents the Arabs from engaging diligently in such an attempt. He thinks that, if they were permitted to do so, the Arabs would surely be able to " bring a Súrah like it" in eloquence, elegance, and poetry. Doubtless most Muslims regard these opinions as heretical, and it is by no means the desire of the author of these pages to maintain such views. He would merely point out that the peerlessness of the Qur'án, so constantly asserted by Muslims as clear and indisputable, has by no means remained undisputed by certain learned Arabs themselves. If then the style of the Qur'án has not seemed to these men miraculous, and to be a sufficient proof that Muhammad was Divinely commissioned, it is no marvel that the cogency of this asserted proof has not been clear to men of less learning and slighter knowledge of Arabic.

Even were it granted, however, that the style of the Qur'án is superior to that of any other Arabic book, that would not prove its inspiration or its descent upon Muhammad. In each cultivated language there are certain books which in that language are without a rival. In English, no dramatist equals Shakespeare; in German, Goethe and Schiller are unrivalled in their dramas; in Persian, Háfiz surpasses all other poets in one kind of poetry, Maulánáyi Rürnt in another. In Sanskrit, no one can now produce a poem equal to those in the Rig-Véda. Yet it would be absurd to suppose that these works are inspired merely because they are unequalled, each in its own style and in its own tongue. We must judge this by the teaching of the book, not by its style. This we have shown in the Introduction. Otherwise the Hindús would be justified in saying, as they do, that the Rig-Veda is inspired, although we find thirty-three deities mentioned in it. In any inspired book we may admire a noble literary style, but we rightly expect that which is essential, that is, true doctrines. Even an ordinary theological book written in our own time is not of much value, if its teaching is imperfect and untrustworthy, however polished and eloquent its style may be.

If it be asserted that the Quran is more eloquent and contains more beautiful poetry than any other book, in whatever language, then this assertion is entirely destitute of proof. It could not be proved to anyone, unless that man knew all the languages of the world, ancient and modern, and had read all the books ever written. No one on earth has ever done this, for such a task is far beyond human power. It is unreasonable therefore for our Muslim friends to assure us that their religion is a light and a guidance and necessary for all men to accept, and yet to tell us that the greatest proof of the truth of Islam and of the mission of Muhammad is one which no human being can possibly, under any circumstances, be able to profit by. It is as if one blind man assured another that his salvation depended upon his distinguishing all the colours of the rainbow. For neither the Muslims nor ourselves know all human languages and have read all Earth's many books. The proof-which they adduce is therefore as unreal and unprofitable to them as to us.

We cannot read all languages, but we can read some of the most important. When we read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, many scholars hold that the eloquence of Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and many of the Psalms, for instance, is greater than that of any part of the Quran. Hardly anyone but a Muslim would deny this, and probably no Muslim who knew both Arabic and Hebrew well would be able to deny it. But even those who are not scholars may test this matter for themselves. Let anyone read a selected part of the Qur an translated into Persian, or UrdCt, or

Turkish, and then compare it with a good translation of a portion of Isaiah into the same tongue. He will then be able to form his own opinion as to the unsupported assertion »that the Qur'an excels all other books in beauty of style.

But, even were it proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the Qur'dn far surpasses all other books in eloquence, elegance, and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man's strength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman's beauty her virtue. Only by the contents of a book, by its doctrines, by its satisfying the criteria laid clown in the Introduction, can any book be recognized as Divinely inspired. The impostor M&ni is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Paraclete because he produced a book called Artang, full of beautiful pictures. He said that the book had been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equal in beauty to those contained^1 in it, and that therefore it had evidently come from God Himself. But no wise Muslim nor Christian would now consider that the beauty of these pictures proved Mani to be a Prophet, though they possibly showed that he was a skilful painter. His book, like all others, had to be judged by its contents. It was so judged, and it has perished off the face of the earth, and the religion which M&ni taught, though once believed in by many, has not a single adherent now. Only by its teachings can a book be rightly judged. Therefore we proceed in the next chapter to consider the contents of the Qur'Sn, just as we have previously considered those of the Bible.

[' In the Persian and Urdfl versions of the Mizdnul Haqq, the verses in the Shdhndmeh referring to Mani should here be quoted.]

CHAPTER IV

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE QUR'AN, IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THESE PROVE ITS INSPIRATION

In order to ascertain whether the Qur'&n is oris not a revelation from God Most High, we must study its contents. It is not enough to be able to repeat large portions of it by heart without understanding them. This is more worthy of a parrot than of a man. Those who believe that the Quran is God's Word, and that it is a Light and a Guidance to men, should perceive that it can be such only if it enlightens their hearts and intellects, and that it cannot do this unless they comprehend it. A light is given to be set where men can see it, not to be hidden under the bushel of superstition and ignorance. Hence the careful and prayerful study of the Qur'&n is incumbent upon all true Muslims. If the book is God's last and final and most perfect revelation, it can do no good to those who do not understand and obey it. Yet the great mass of Muslims content themselves with repeating its verses aloud in order to gain merit for themselves or for the dead. They repeat it in Arabic, though the majority of them do not understand the tongue of the Quraish. This is not the way to employ a book which professes to come from God. Such conduct is as unsuitable as it would be for a traveller on a dark night to hide his torch in a gloomy cavern, instead of using it to show him the way in which he ought to walk.

Since such lofty claims are made for the Qur'in, and since it is most important that no man should rashly reject any revelation from God, it is desirable that thoughtful Christians also should study the Qur'in and learn what it teaches, lest in rejecting it they should be throwing away light and guidance and salvation. When both Christians and Muslims have studied the book with earnestness, they will be the better able to help one another to find the truth and to walk in the right way, the way of those with whom God Most High is pleased, not that of those with whom He is angry, or who go astray.

The most important of the contents of the Qur'&n is its teaching about the Nature and Attributes of God Most High. It describes Him as One, Eternal, Everlasting, Almighty, All-wise, All-knowing. It tells us that He hears, sees, speaks; that He is the Creator of Heaven and Earth ; that He is Merciful, Just, Gracious, Patient, Holy, the Causer of life and of death ; that He possesses all perfect Attributes and is devoid of all imperfection, and that He is therefore far removed from weakness, ignorance, injustice, and change. The Qur'fin also invites men to belief in the Divine Unity : it absolutely forbids Polytheism and Idolatry. It inculcates belief in the Resurrection, in future rewards and punishments for deeds done here on earth. It speaks of Paradise and of Hell-fire. It bears witness to the Old Testament and to the New, as has been shown in the First Part of this treatise. It bids Muslims profess belief in all the Prophets, making no distinction between them. It condemns hypocrisy, and declares that certain things are lawful (jill) and others unlawful (fV-X I* forbids murder, adultery, theft, and false swearing. It enjoins that justice should be done to orphans, and that alms be given to the poor.

Everyone, be he Christian or Muslim, will readily admit that much of the teaching which the Qur'&n gives on such points is good. All good teaching comes ultimately from the Most Merciful God (who is alone the source of all good), whether we receive such teaching from Him through Prophets, through inspired books, through Conscience, Reason, or in some other manner. But before we admit Muhammad's claim to be a Prophet and a Messenger from God, it must be proved, either (i) that He was the first of all men to teach the great truths of the Unity of God, the difference between good and evil, the guilt of sin, the happiness or misery of the After-life, or (2) that his teaching on these and other points was so vastly superior to that given by earlier prophets that it was unquestionably the result of a fresh Divine Revelation. But it is well known that all the truths to which we have referred had been already taught in many parts of the world, and even in Arabia itself, centuries before Muhammad's birth. The Unity of God is not only taught in both the Old Testament and the New, but it is the very foundation of Judaism as well as of Christianity. All the other truths which we have mentioned are also found in the Bible. That God is the Maker of Heaven and Earth was inculcated even by King Darius of Persia, in the inscriptions which he left upon the rocks of Bisitiin and Istakhr, engraved about 500 years before the Christian era and more than a thousand years before Muhammad's birth. Had Muhammad taught only this one great doctrine for the first time, he would indeed most justly be admitted to be a prophet: but it was not so. Even before his birth the Arabs believed in God Most High (All&h Ta'ala — ^Uj ¿1). The Ka'bah at Mecca was known as the House of God (¿Tv^-o), and the very word Alldh, including as it does the definite article, taught the Divine Unity. Even the name of Muhammad's father, 'Abdullah (¿itux), who died before his son's birth, contains God's Name and proves belief in His Unity. It is admitted that in the " Times of Ignorance " other deities of inferior rank were worshipped as intercessors with God Most High, and were in this sense considered as His Partners: yet even among the heathen Arabs Monotheism had not entirely died out then. If it had done so, Muhammad might have learned it from the Jews and Christians who then dwelt in Arabia. Moreover, before professing to be a Prophet, Muhammad had at least twice visited Syria, where he met and conversed with the people, almost all of whom then professed Christianity. His first recorded visit to Syria took place with his uncle Abft Talib when he was about nine years old ; the second with Maisirah, a slave of Khadijah, when at the age of twenty-five. Even among his relatives and personal friends there were men who were or had been Jews or Christians, to say nothing of his Coptic slave-girl Mary. For instance, Waraqah ibn Naufal, one of the Hanifs, became a Christian, and was acquainted 1 with both the Taur&t and the Injil. Another of them, 'Uthmin ibn Hu- wairith, also received baptism at Caesar's court in Constantinople. Waraqah and 'Uthm&n, as we learn from the genealogies which Ibn Hish&m 2 gives, were Khadijah's cousins. Another Hanif, 'Ubaidu'llah ibn Jahsh, became a Muslim and went to Abyssinia, but there he became a Christian. When he died, Muhammad married his widow, Umm Habibah. Regarding Salmon the Persian, who was one of the Ash&b, some say that he was originally a Christian of Mesopotamia, and became a Zoroastrian when carried captive to Persia. The more probable opinion is that he was a Persian and a Zoroastrian by birth, but became a Christian in Syria. He then came to Arabia, became a Muslim and a close personal friend of Muhammad. He persuaded the latter to use a catapult in his attack upon Taif, and to dig a ditch round Medinah to protect it from the attack of the Quraish and their allies in a. h. 5. This is Ibn Hisham's account. Regarding 'Abdu'llah ibn Salam, we learn from Ibn Ishaq^3 that he was a learned Jewish Rabbi i^) before he became a Muslim. 'AbbSsi and the two Jal&ls in their commentaries tell us that this is the man referred to in Stirah xlvi. 9, as a " witness " to the asserted agreement between the Qur'&n and the Jewish Scriptures.

1 Stralu'r Rastil, vol. i, pp. 81, 82.

8 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 63, 76, &c.

3 Ibid., vol. i, p. 184. See also the Rauzatul Ahbab.

'Abbdsi mentions a Christian slave named Yasir (also called Abti Fuqaihah) and a Greek Christian whose Arabic name was Abil Takbihah, both of whom were referred to in the accusation brought against Muhammad of getting help in compiling the Qur'in, as we learn from Stirah xxv. 5, 6. In his commentary on Stirah xvi. 105, 'Abb&si speaks of a Christian named Cain (jas an object of the same suspicion, while the two jaldls in their notes on this passage mention Yasar and Jabr; others speak of Salmdn, others of Suhaib, others of a monk named Addas. Muhammad's adopted son Zaid was a Syrian by birth, and therefore professed Christianity.

When we consider these facts, which cannot be disputed, we perceive that it is absolutely impossible to maintain that those great doctrines of the Qur'&n which in the main coincide with those of the Old Testament and the New were fer the first time revealed directly to Muhammad in the Quran. Hence their occurrence in the Qur'dn, though a very good thing indeed, and one for which we may well thank God, is by no means a miracle, nor is it a proof of the inspiration of that book or of Muhammad's Divine commission as a prophet.

It is often stated, however, that a decisive proof of this is found in the numerous prophecies which, some Muslims assert, are to be met with in the Qur'&n. Those who hold this view say that the fulfilment of prophecy is a clear proof of a Divine commission, and in corroboration of this they rightly quote Deut. xviii. 21, 22. It is our duty therefore to examine and carefully consider those verses of the Qur an which are said to contain predictions of events which were future when Muhammad dictated these passages to his amanuenses. If Muslims would only agree that the Qur'dn was Muhammad's own composition, though written by inspiration, and not dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel, their argument would be much stronger.

Those who have endeavoured to find as large a number as possible of predictions in the Qur'an say that they amount in all to twenty-two. They are contained in the following passages, some of which are supposed to include more than one prophecy : Silrahs ii. 21, 22, 88, 89; iii. 10, 107, 108, 144; v. 71; viii. 7 ; ix. 14 ; xv. 9, 95 ; xxiv. 54; xxviii. 85 ; xxx. 1-4; xli. 42; xlviii. 16, 18-21, 27, 28; liv. 44, 45; lxi. 13 ; ex. 1, 2.

An attentive student will perceive that these alleged prophecies maybe divided into three classes : (1) Those which refer to Muhammad's victories ; (2) Those relating to the Qur'&n itself ; (3) The single " prophecy " regarding the, Byzantines (^l). With these we now

proceed to deal consecutively and as briefly as possible.

Passages of the first class need not detain us long. Of course it is impossible to prove that they were composed or " descended " before the occurrence of the events to which they are said by commentators to refer. It is very probable, however, that the Traditions are right in declaring that this was so, and for the sake of argument we grant it. Yet it is not at all surprising that Muhammad should promise his men the victory before each contest. Every general almost always does so, in order to encourage his troops. One side or the other finally wins the battle, or claims that it has done so. Both generals have predicted their own victory, and one of the two is correct in his prediction. Yet we do not on that account consider him a prophet or the Seal of the Prophets. Doubtless Changiz Khin and Tamerlane(Taimflr i lang—eU promised their followers success in battle and the plunder of their enemies' property. The promise was fulfilled and the foe defeated : but who therefore considers that these conquerors were prophets or Apostles of God ? The very fact that his men believed in Muhammad's claims to a Divinely-given mission would make them accept his promises of victory and booty as from God. They would thus become almost invincible, as in later days were the Wahhibis, and more

s

recently the followers of the so-called Mahdl and his Khaltfah in the Stidan. In this, however, there is nothing miraculous.

That this may be clear, let us examine the account of the battle of Badr, regarding which some claim to find a prophecy in Sflrah liv. 44, 45. Concerning this battle, A1 Baiz£wl, in his commentary on Sftrah viii, 5, tells us that Abd Sufyan with only thirty-nine other mounted men was escorting a caravan from Syria. The Angel Gabriel is said to have informed Muhammad of the fewness of those who protected it and of the wealth which it carried. Muhammad therefore urged his people to attack the caravan and plunder it. Meanwhile Abfi Jahl led out the Meccans to Badr. On hearing this latter piece of news, Muhammad's men inquired why he had not warned them that they were about to fight, in order that they might prepare for battle. They wished to leave the enemy's army and to pursue the ill-protected caravan,[1] which, Muhammad told them, had passed by the sea shore. This angered Muhammad, and he assured them that God had promised him as his prey one of the two companies, either the caravan or the enemy's army. In his commentary on ver. 6, A1 Baiziwi explains the reluctance of the Muslims to fight as due to ihe comparative smallness [2] of their numbers, and to the fact that they had only two horsemen among them and were unprepared for battle. He says, in his commentary on SGrah liv. 44, 45, that 'Umar afterwards declared that he did not know the meaning of these verses until he saw Muhammad putting on his breast-plate on the day of the battle. Sfirah viii. 6 makes it clear that the Muslims at first feared on that day to attack the Quraish, for it runs thus : " They will dispute with thee concerning the truth, after that it has been made clear, as if they are being driven on to death, and see it." Ibn Hish&m's account of the affair is the following : " When 1 the Apostle of God heard of Abd Sufyin's coming from Syria, he exhorted the Muslims to go against them, and he said, ' This is a caravan of the Quraish in which is their property. Therefore go ye forth against it; perhaps God will make it your spoil.' Therefore the men were incited thereto. Some of them were eager (light), and some reluctant (heavy), and that because they had not thought that the Apostle of God would offer battle. And when AbA Sufy&n drew near the Hij&z, he kept asking for news and inquiring of any riders whom he met, since he feared about the matter of the men" (i.e. Muhammad's followers); " until information reached him through some travellers that Muhammad had gathered his Companions together against him and against

his caravan. Accordingly he thereupon became on his guard. And he hired Zamzam ibn 'Amri'l GhaffSrl, and sent him to Mecca. And he bade him go to the Quraish and gather them together to [the defence of] their property, and inform them that Muhammad had gone to encounter them" {i.e. AbQ Sufyfin's people) " with his companions ". Accordingly a large body of the Quraish marched out to defend their property. In the Hayatu I Qul&b 2 we are told, in accordance with both these accounts, that Muhammad informed his Companions that the caravan had passed and that the Quraish were advancing towards them, and that God Most High had commanded him to fight a Jih&d with them. On hearing this his Companions became very much afraid and very anxious. Elsewhere the writer of that account says that, when Muhammad's Companions heard of the great number of the Quraish, they were very much afraid, and cried out loud and wept. Hence it was that, to encourage them and enable them to fight manfully a battle upon which so much depended, 1 Siratur Rasdl, vol. ii, p. 9. * Vol. ii, ch. 30.

s 2

Muhammad repeated Stirah liv. 44, 45. In this he acted wisely, and very much as any other general would have done, except that he stated that his message of encouragement and promise of victory came from God. Cheered by such words, the-Muslims fought bravely and gained a great victory. But this was not in any sense a miracle. Nor can Muhammad's words of encouragement be justly entitled a prophecy.

We now turn to passages of the second class. Some of these are supposed to predict the preservation of the Qur'&n in completeness and its protection from all injury. The author of the Izhdru'l Haqq, writing on this subject,1 after quoting SGrah xv. 9, " Verily it is We that have sent down the Warning, and verily We are surely Protectors," says : " That is, from alteration and addition to and subtraction from what has been handed down in succession .... by the Reciters of the time. And it has happened just as it was announced. Accordingly no one among the infidels or the idle or the Qarmatites (¿kJ^Jl) has been able, up to this time in which we live, to alter any of it, either one of the letters of its foundations or one of those of its meanings, or one of its vowel-points." Those of our readers who have perused the Third Chapter of the Second Part of our present Treatise, and who remember how 'Uthmin destroyed all the old codices of the Qur'&n, will be able to estimate the value of this statement. If it is true, then many of the accepted Traditions (kio^U-l) are false, for, as we have seen, they declare that certain verses of the Qur'fin, for example the Verse of Stoning, have been lost. Hence it is not clear that, if Sflrah xv. 9 be considered as a prophecy, it has been fulfilled. This second class of asserted predictions therefore is, like the first class, of no real value as a proof of the inspiration of the Qur'&n and of Muhammad's prophetic office.

In the Third Class there is only one passage, SGrah xxx. 1-4, which in the ordinary copies of the Qur'an 1 Part II, pp. 32, 33.

runs thus : " The Byzantines have been defeated in the nearest part of the land, and they shall conquer in a small number of years after their defeat. Unto God belongeth the matter before and after. And in that day the Believers will rejoice with God's help. He helpeth whomsoever He willeth,and He is the Glorious, the Gracious." Some Muslims argue that this is such a great and distinct prophecy that there can be no doubt of Muhammad's being a prophet. They tell us that the first verse refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusrau Parviz. We are told that when news of the victory of the Persians reached Mecca, the Polytheists rejoiced, saying, " The Muslims and the Christians are the People of the Book, while we and the Persians are Gentiles and have no Book." Then this passage was revealed, predicting that the Byzantines would soon defeat the Persians. Abd Bakr laid a bet with Ubai ibn Khalaf that the prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but, when he learnt from Muhammad that the word ^¿j, used in ver. 3 (" in a small number of years") meant a period of between 3 and 9 years,1 he altered the terms of the wager. We are told that within seven years from the Byzantines' defeat they overcame their enemies, and that Abd Bakr received from the heirs of the deceased Ubai the amount of the bet. Such is the story. Let us now see what its evidential value is, if we grant that the verses were composed before the Byzantine successes, and that the reading in the ordinary text of the Qur'Sn is correct.

From history we learn that the Persians defeated the Greek (or Byzantine) forces in Syria in the sixth year before the Hijrah, that is in a.d. 615. As this defeat took place " in the nearest part of the land" to Mecca, news must have been received there within a very few days. A1 Baiz&wi in his commentary tells us that the prophecy was fulfilled when the Byzantines defeated the Persians " on the day of A1 Hudaibiyyah."

1 See A1 Baizawi's note on the passage.

Now the treaty of A1 Hudaibiyyah took place in the month Dhti'l Qa'dah of a. h. 6 (March, a.d. 628). Therefore, if this commentator is right, not seven but twelve years elapsed between the two events. If Muhammad therefore explained as meaning a period of between three and nine years, the facts of the case do not confirm his claims.

It was not at all a difficult matter for any able man to predict the ultimate victory of the Byzantines. That the Persians had at first gained some successes was evidently a surprise to the Quraish, hence their delight at the news. Abil Bakr's wager was probably made before he consulted Muhammad at all. If so, he^1 as xvell as Muhammad felt convinced of the fact that the Byzantines would finally overcome their foes. The reason of this conviction was the evident instability of the Persian Empire in those days. Between the death of Anftshiravfin (a.d. 578) and the overthrow of Yasdijird III, in a.d. 642, at the battle of Nah&vand, no less than fourteen sovereigns sat on the Persian throne, many of whom were murdered after a very short reign. In the five years that elapsed between the death of Khusrau Parviz (a.d. 627) and the accession of Yasdijird III (a.d. 632), there were eleven Persian monarchs. A country subject to such internal disturbances was evidently unfitted long to resist the Byzantine arms, and this Muhammad readily perceived. We may date the beginningof the Byzantine successes under the Emperor Heraclius from the year 625 of the Christian era, instead of two years later, as A1 Baizawi does. Yet even then the victory was ten years after the defeat, and not between three and nine.

That Muhammad did actually realize the weakness of the Persians is clear from a fact mentioned in Ibn Hisham's Siratur Rasill. He tells us that, when Muhammad and the chiefs of the Quraish held a conference in the presence of Abu Talib in Mecca, before 1 Though Abu Bakr was not a prophet.

the Hijrah, Muhammad tried to persuade them to repeat the first part of the Kalimah and put away their polytheism by promising them the supremacy over Arabia and Persia on that condition, saying: "O Uncle,1 they shall give me one word: ye shall through it possess Arabia, and through it shall Persia submit to you."

But A1 Baizawl shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Stiratu'r RGm. He tells us that some read c^lu instead of the usual ^llk, and instead of ¿JJaL.. The rendering will then be : " The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years," &c. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abfl Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable,2 since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which A1 Baizdwl gives is, that the Byzantines became the conquerors of " the well-watered land of Syria" (pLJf ujj, Jlc), and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the "descent" of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to a.h. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel-points were not used when the Qur'dn was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were " sent down", (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to show that the

' Unless we admit that Ubai had something of the prophet in him.

> C,V/,/.yV Jfn,4il ur.1 i n 146 : V^J ^yfto* IfcjjLo ¡J».|j ¿ji'^e U

passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office.

Therefore the whole argument founded upon the supposed prophetic element in the Qur'in breaks down when examined. In order to see this, we have but to compare these twenty-two passages of the Qur'&n with the very large series of prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament, or those about Israel in both the Old Testament and the New, or those in the Book of Revelation which have been already fulfilled : for instance, Rev. ix. and also Rev. xiv. 6.

Another alleged proof of the inspiration of the Qur'in is the information which it professes to give about ancient times and vanished nations. Such information would be of interest, if reliable : but we must test it, as a merchant does coins offered to him, before we can accept it as correct. Pure gold has no reason to fear any test that can be applied to it, but comes out uninjured and approved from all kinds of testing and from the hottest fire. Let us see whether this is so with the historical statements in the Qur'in.

The existence of the ancient Arab tribes of 'Ad and Thamtid is known to us from what two ancient Greek writers, Ptolemy and Diodorus Siculus, tell us about them. To the information thus afforded the Qur'&n adds very little that can be considered historical. Many great discoveries of recent times have completely confirmed what the Bible tells us about the far more ancient nations of Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria, but no such discoveries have corroborated what the Qur'&n says about 'Ad and Thamud. Hence learned^1 men think it highly probable that what Muhammad taught about these tribes was taken from the books of the Sabians (ajl>\l}\), which the Qur'zln calls the " Volumes of Abraham "(¡^»Ir'-i. —Sfirah Ixxxvii. 19).

1 See A1 Kindi's remarks about 'Ad and Thamfid in p. 57 of the Risdlatu 'Abdulldh, &c., printed at London, a.d. 1880.

Muhammad seems afterwards to have discovered that these volumes were forgeries, and therefore about four years after his claim to be a prophet he ceased to mention them. It is possible that Htid, Salih, and Shu'aib were Christian preachers who were rejected by the Arab tribes to whom they were sent. As no mention of them has yet been found elsewhere, we cannot say anything about the dates at which they lived, if they ever existed. The Qur'in tells us very little about them. The learned say that, since the Qur'&nic statements about other persons, whose existence we know from history and who lived long before Muhammad's time, are not always quite correct, we must wait for evidence before accepting any such statements as historically accurate. For example, much that the Qur'fin states regarding Abraham is not in accordance with the teaching of the Taur&t, to confirm which the Qur'eln claims to have been sent down. The story of his being thrown into the fire and coming out safe is taken from a Jewish fable, and the latter arose from a mistake in translating one word in Genesis. This has been proved by the author of the Mas&diru IIslam[Yan&biu I Islam: "Original Sources of the Qur'&n"]. Abraham's father's name was not Azar (Sdrah vi. 74), but Terah (Gen. xi. 26). Again, in SQrah vii. 130, we read that God sent " the Flood " (jUjiJl) upon the Egyptians in Moses' time. The use of the definite article in this passage makes us inquire whether this was the same as Noah's Flood, mentioned in the same Siirah (vii. 62). In SQrah iii. 30-44, it is clearly taught that Miriam, daughter of Amram {¡J^—Stirah lvi. 12) and sister pi Aaron (Stirah xix. 29 : compare Exod. xv. 20 and Num. xxvi. 59), was identical with Mary the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ (compare Stirah Ixvi. 12), who lived about 1,400 years later. Muslim in the Kit&bu I Adab tells us that the Christians of Najrin pointed out this historical error to A1 Mughairah. He consulted Muhammad on the subject, but could not get a satisfactory answer. Nor has one yet been found, after more than 1,300 years' search on the part of the 'Ulami of I slim.

In SQrah xviii. 82-98 we find an account of Dhil'l Qarnain. Ibn Hishdm[1] and A1 Baiz&wi identify him with Alexander the Great of Macedon. AI Baizdwi writes thus^2: " Dhil'l Qarnain, that is to say, Alexander the Greek, King of Persia and Greece, and it is said of the East and of the West, and therefore was he named Dhil'l Qarnain : or because he supported the two horns of the world, its East and its West; and it is said, because in his time two generations of men came to an end : and it is said he had two horns, that is, two locks of hair : and it is said his crown had two horns. And it is probable that he was given that title because of his bravery, as a heroic leader is called the Ram, as if he butted his adversaries. And there is a difference of opinion regarding his being a prophet, with agreement concerning his belief and his soundness."

Human life must have been extremely short in those days, if Alexander lived for two generations, for he was only 33 years old when he died after a drunken debauch at Babylon in 323 b.c. Instead of being a prophet,3 or even a believer in the One True God, he was an idolater, and he actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Am&n. He certainly did not see the sun set " in a miry fount" (ii^ —S&rah

xviii. 84), or, if we adopt the reading of Ibn 'Amir and Hamzah and Al Kas&'i and Abd Bakr,4 "in a hot fount" (ilAi ^le i), for we know that the sun does

not go round the earth, as the writer of the verse evidently fancied it did, to set in any spot of the kind. Nor did the Alexander whom we know from true history, as distinguished from fable, build a wall of iron and brass between two mountains (SQrah xviii. 95).

Yet Al Baizâwî and other Muslim writers are doubtless right in saying that Alexander is the person to whom the Qur'ân gives the title of Dhû'l Qarnain. The comparison with a ram explains how the title arose. In Dan. viii. 3, 4, we are told of a ram with two horns which pushed westward and southward and northward, and which none could resist. Evidently the person who composed this Sûrah had heard of this ram, and thought it represented Alexander, who is mentioned in the same chapter. But in this he was not correct, for Dan. viii. 20, tells us that the two-horned ram denoted the united Median and Persian Empires, whereas in the same chapter the Macedonian monarch is referred to as the notable horn between the eyes of the he-goat which overthrew the ram, that is to say, which conquered the whole of the Persian Empire (Dan. viii. 5-7, 21). The use of the word " ram " (^/-O in Arabic with the meaning of " heroic leader " (as A1 Baizâwl says) caused this confusion in the mind of the person who gave this title of Dhû'l Qarnain in the Qur'ân to Alexander the Great. What the Qur'ân says about Alexander can be tested, because he lived in the full light of history. It is well known that the celebrated philosopher Aristotle was his tutor. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander's exploits, and regarding them there is no uncertainty. When learned men therefofe find the Qur'ân so very inaccurate in regard to this king, whose history is known, they not unnaturally hesitate to accept as valuable and even as reliable the statements of the Qur'ân about other matters of past history.

The Qur'ân states that Pharaoh's wife adopted Moses (Sûrah xxviii. 8), whereas Moses himself in the Taurât says that he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Exod. ii. 5-10). In several places in the Qur'ân we are told that Haman (¿LU) was closely associated with Pharaoh, and was in his service^1 ; but 1 Sûrahs xxviii. 5, 7., 38 ; xxix. 38; xl. 25, 38.

from the Book of Esther^1 we learn that Haman was the favourite of Ahasuerus (that is to say, Xerxes, as the Greeks called him), who lived in Persia many hundreds of years later, instead of in Egypt in Pharaoh's time. Again, according to the Qur'^n, Pharaoh told Haman to build a tower of brick, the top of which would reach unto heaven (Stirah xxviii. 38 ; xl. 38, 39). But from Gen. xi. 1-9, we learn that it was in Babylon, many generations before Pharaoh's time, that the people built this famous tower.

We are told that the Golden Calf worshipped by Israel in the wilderness in Moses' time was made by "the Samaritan" (i^O—Surah xx. 87, 96). But the city of Samaria was not built till hundreds of years after Moses' death (1 Kings xvi. 24). Evidently in the mind of the composer of this Silrah there was confusion between the golden calf made by the Israelites in the wilderness and the two golden calves afterwards worshipped in the kingdom of Israel after the time of David and Solomon (1 Kings xii. 28). But even these two calves were not made by a Samaritan, since Samaria was not yet built. When it was built, however, it became the capital of that kingdom, and this fact partly accounts for the very great and notable historical error to which we refer.

In Sdrah ii. 250 we are told of a certain incident in connexion with selecting a body of warriors by observing in what manner they drank water. The Qur'in says that this took place in the time of Saul (^yu.)and in connexion with David's victory over Goliath. But the Bible tells us that it took place long before, in the time of Gideon.

In Silrah xviii. 8-26 is found the story of the Companions of the Cave. But the author of the Masddirul Islam [Yanabiu'l Islam: "Original Sources of the Quran"] has proved how this fable originated. No doubt in the " Days of Ignorance " some very credulous and ignorant Christians believed it, and from them the Meccans and the composer of this Silrah learnt the

1 Esther iii. i-vii.-10.

tale. For the story is contained in the writings of several Syriac authors, along with many other monkish legends. In Europe it is known as a tale to amuse children. There are many different forms of the fable, but its origin has been discovered in the legend which a heathen Greek writer, Diogenes Laertius, about a.d. 200, relates^1 about Epimenides' long sleep. Epi- menides was a heathen Greek boy who for many years slept in a cave. Diogenes Laertius quotes contradictory accounts of the length of this boy's life given by different Greek writers.

It is surely unnecessary to quote any more of what learned men have called the anachronisms and historical inaccuracies of the Quran. From what has been already said, however, it will be clear to the honoured reader that it is not wise to appeal to the valuable information contained in the Qur'an regarding ancient times and vanished nations as a proof of its inspiration and of Muhammad's office of a prophet.

Another proof of the inspiration of the Qur'&n is said to be its wonderful freedom from self-contradiction. Some Muslims say that in so large a book there must have occurred many contradictory statements, if it were not of Divine origin. But men of learning have pointed out many contradictions in the Qur'&n. Some of these are only slight, others are of great importance. As an example of slight contradictions it will be sufficient to ask our honoured readers to compare SGrah lvi. 13, 14, with verses 38 and. 39 of the same Sdrah. A1 Baiziwi's attempted explanation and the tradition mentioned by Zamakhshari here are not quite satisfactory. But this is a trifling matter. We proceed to point out a few of real consequence.

In Stirah iv. 51 awd 116 we are told that the one sin which God will never pardon is Shirk (d^Ui), or the association of partners with God. Yet in Siirah vi. 76, 77. 78, we are informed that Abraham, the Friend of [' De Vitis Philosophorum, Lib. I, cap. x. 2, 4.]

God, was guilty of this very sin. Abraham is held by all Muslims to have been a prophet, and they consider it very wicked to deny that all prophets are sinless (j^ju.). Although it is the unpardonable sin to worship any other but God, yet the Qur'&n teaches that 'Azizil or Iblis was cast out of God's favour because he refused to worship Adam (Stirahs ii. 31 ; vii. 10; xvii. 63; xviii. 48; xx. 115).

The Qur'Sn rightly condemns hypocrisy (Sdrahs ii. 78; iv. 137; ix. 65-69; lviii. 13). It states that the lowest stage in Hell is reserved for hypocrites (SArah iv. 144). Now it will be admitted that people who through compulsion pretend to change their religion, and who thus profess with their lips what in their hearts they do not believe, are hypocrites. But the Qur'An commands Muslims to force men to accept Isldm, that is to say, to become hypocrites. For we find several passages which make fighting in a Jih&d incumbent on Muslims under certain circumstances. They must then fight until all their heathen opponents are compelled to embrace I slim, unless the latter prefer to be killed. The " People of the Book ", however, may be spared, if they " pay tribute out of hand, and are brought low " (Stirah ix. 5, 29, 41 ; compare Stirahs v. 39; lxi. 11; xxii. 77). To condemn hypocrisy, and yet to command Muslims to force men to become hypocrites, seems to the minds of most men self-contradictory.

The Qur'Sn in some measure condemns lust, for in SOrah lxxix. 40 we read: " Whoso hath feared the place of his Lord and hath restrained himself from desire, then verily Paradise is the abode " for him. Yet elsewhere the same book permits to Muslims polygamy, divorce, and the use of female' slaves as concubines (Stirah iv. 29). To Muhammad himself, moreover, special marital indulgence was permitted (SOrah xxxiii. 37, 38, 49-51), doubtless in consequence of certain inclinations of his regarding which theTraditions speak too plainly for us to quote them here. Even to those who are not slaves of lust here on earth, the chief reward promised in Paradise, if they are faithful Muslims, is unlimited indulgence in that vileness (SGrahs lv. 46-78; lvi. n-39; see also Mishkatu I Masabih, " Sifatu'l Jannat").1 In this matter there is something far worse than contradiction, but there is undoubtedly the latter also. Surely if lust is wrong on earth and hateful to God, the Holy One, it cannot be pleasing to Him in Paradise.

Wine is forbidden to Muslims here on earth (SGrah v. 92 ; compare Stirah ii. 216), but in Paradise rivers of wine are promised them (SClrahs xlvii. 16 ; lxxvi. 5 ; Ixxxiii. 25).

The Qur'in's statements about the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be said to be free from contradiction. Some passages speak of Him as a mere man and a prophet, like any other of the chief prophets, entirely denying His Deity (Surahs iii. 52; v. 19, 109, 110; xliii. 59). Others, however, give Him higher titles than are given to any other human being, some of them—as, for example, " The Word of God " (¿if ¿Ui, compare SClrah iv. 169) —being such that they cannot rightly be assigned to any creature. Regarding Christ only does the Qur'in say that He was born of a Virgin (Stirah xxi. 91), that He was "illustrious in this world and in the next" (Sfirah iii. 40).2 The words used in Sftrah iii. 31 are explained by the Tradition quoted by Muslim and referred to by A1 Ghazzili, that Satan was present at the birth of every child born into the world except Jesus and His mother (Mishkatii I Masabih, Kitdb i, Bab iii. 1, and Kit&b xxv, Bab i. 1). The Qur'an testifies to Christ's miracles (Stirah ii. 254, &c.), and

[' In former editions of the Mizdnul Haqq it was customary to quote these passages, or selections from them. When this book is rendered into any Muhammadan tongue, this should still be done, not here, but further on in the chapter : but for the English edition it is not necessary. Some of these extracts are given in my Religion of the Crescent, 3rd ed., S.P.C.K.]

2 A1 Baizawi says: " The illustriousness in this world is the office of a Prophet, and that in the next world is the office of Intercessor " : similarly Zamakhshari.

even that He created[1] a bird out of clay (Sdrah

3. 43). although power to create is one of the Divine Attributes. To Him alone of the greater Prophets the Qur'in imputes no sin. Of no other Prophet does the Qur an tell us that his birth took place through God's Spirit (SCirah xxi. 91) and that he was "a sign to all creatures" (ibidem), and was " a Spirit from Him", i.e. from God (Stirah iv. 169). All other Prophets are dead, but the Qur'in informs us that the Lord Jesus was taken up alive into heaven (Stirah

4. 156): and Muslims agree with Christians in believing that He still lives there, and will return at the end of the world. Christ did not need to have His breast opened, His burden removed (as is said of another in Stirah xciv. 1-3), His sins forgiven (contrast Stirah xlvii. 21). Nor do His people pray for God's mercy on Him, saying, " O Lord, have mercy upon Him and give Him peace."2 In all these points and in not a few others Muslims, in accordance with the Qur'an, admit the distinction which exists between Christ and every other Prophet, every other human being. Even to Muhammad the Qur'an does not attribute such dignity as it does to Christ. And yet there can be no doubt that the aim of the Qur'an is to substitute Muhammad for Christ as the Head of the human race. In this matter there is something very contradictory, since the Qur'an does not attribute miraculous birth, sinlessness, power of working miracles, or a truly noble and holy character to Muhammad, as will be shown in a later chapter and at the end of the present one.

One of the leading doctrines of the Qur'an is that fate decides every man's actions and his happiness or misery hereafter. Thus in Silrah xvii. 14 it is written : " And as for every man, We have fastened for him his fate upon his neck, and We shall bring out to him on the day of the Resurrection a book which shall meet him wide open." In Stirahs xiv. 4 and lxxiv. 34 it is declared that " God misleadeth whom He willeth, and guideth aright whom He willeth ". The same teaching is given in Stirahs ii. 5, 6; iv. 90; vi. 125; vii. 177, 178, and elsewhere. In Sdrahs vii. 178, xi. 120, and xxxii. 13 we are told that God said, "Verily I shall fill hell with J inns and men all together," and that this was His purpose in creating them. Yet other passages tell us that men are to be rewarded in the next world for having been Muslims here on earth, and punished for not having become such. If every action has been fated beforehand, and man is devoid of freedom of will, it is evident that there can be on man's part neither merit nor demerit, neither goodness nor wickedness, and neither reward nor punishment; for the latter words imply good and evil desert. Nor can there be any object in commands and prohibitions, since there is no power on man's part to obey or disobey, if Fate has fixed everything beforehand. Yet the Qur'dn, which professes to come from the All-wise God, contains both commands and prohibitions. The Qur'&n in some places tells Muhammad that his efforts to convert men to God are useless, because God Himself has made it impossible for them to believe. For instance, in Stirah ii. 5, 6 it is written : " Verily those who have disbelieved, it is equal to them whether thou hast warned them or hast not warned them : they will not believe. God hath set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and upon their sight there is a dimness, and for them is severe punishment." Yet he is commanded to attempt their conversion, not by force, but by gentle means. Thus in Stirah ii. 257 it is written : " There is no compulsion in the Religion." In Siirah xxiv. 53 we read the command to Muhammad : " Say thou, ' Obey God and obey the Apostle'; for, if ye turn back, verily upon him lies that with which he has been burdened, and upon you that with which ye have been burdened: and if ye obey ye shall

T

be rightly guided: and naught is incumbent upon the Apostle except distinct delivery (of the Message)." In like manner in SGrah lxxxviii. 21, 22 the following command is given to Muhammad: " Therefore warn thou : verily thou art a warner. Thou art not a governor over them." But elsewhere the very contrary to this is taught, for everyone knows that he who is called "The Prophet with the Sword" asserted that God had commanded him to spread Isldm by force. This is taught in such passages as Sarahs ii. 86-89, 212 ; iv. 76, 91 ; viii. 40; xlviii. 16 ; lxvi. 9. Here we find contradiction after contradiction. It does not avail to say that later verses annul some of the earlier ones, as we read in Silrah ii. ioo.[1] This is only an admission that in the Quran as it now exists there is such self-contradiction that some such device must be found to account for its existence. A good instance is afforded by comparing Sfirah ii. 59 with Sflrah iii. 79. In the former passage we are told that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Sabians are saved (" Verily those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians and the $&bians, whoso hath believed in God and the Last Day and done good, to them accordingly shall be their reward with their Lord: and upon them is no fear, nor shall they grieve"); in the latter, that only Muslims have the true religion (" And whoso desireth other than IslSm as a religion, it shall never therefore be accepted from him, and in the next world he shall be among the lost"). It would be easy to adduce other contradictions in the Qur'&n, especially as Muslim learned men admit that there are no fewer than 225 verses which have been abrogated. Many of these abrogated verses are those which inculcate justice and religious toleration. We are asked to believe that the Unchangeable God afterwards sanctioned oppression and persecution and imposed war on Muslims, even against their will, in order that their faith might be forced upon other men (compare Sarahs ii. 212, 213 ; ix. 5, 29).

There is another very important class of contradictions in the Qur'&n which Muslims should carefully observe. It is that between the Qur'Sn and the Bible. We have already seen that the Qur'&n professes to have been " sent down " in order to confirm and protect the Taur&t and the Injll. Yet in not a few matters it absolutely contradicts them both. Among the matters in which there is absolute contradiction between the Qur'&n and the Bible are many leading doctrines of the Gospel: for example, the death of Christ upon the cross, in accordance with prophecy; His Atonement for the sins of the whole world ; His Divine Nature; His Resurrection; that He alone can save men's souls. Now it is clear that no later Revelation from the Unchangeable One can change His Eternal Purpose, His appointed way of salvation, His promises, His Moral Law, His own Divine teaching. Moreover, the Qur'dn's claim to be a Revelation, and that of Muhammad to be a Prophet with a new Message, are both contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, as is clear from the Lord J esus Christ's saying: " Heaven[1] and Earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away," and from St. Paul's words: " Though 2 we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema." There is no room, therefore, for a new revelation, whether brought down by Gabriel or by any other person, angel or man. In this matter the Qur'Sn contradicts itself, for it first asserts the truth and inspiration of the Bible, and then teaches what is contrary to its leading doctrines.

In many minor matters also the Qur'an contradicts itself, by differing from the Bible which it came to confirm. For instance, in Stirah xix. 23 we are told that

Christ was born under a palm-tree, while the Gospel says His birth took place in a caravansarai, and that He was laid in a manger (Luke ii). The Qur'&n says that He spoke when He was an infant in the cradle (SArahs iii. 41 ; v. 109; xix. 31), and that when young He created birds out of clay and made them fly (Stirahs iii! 43 ; v. 110). These are miracles. But the Gospel mentions the fact that His first Miracle was wrought soon after the beginning of His Ministry at the age of thirty years (Luke iii. 23 ; John ii. 11). So again in matters of duty and morality there is contradiction between the Qur'in and the Gospel (Injil). Christ taught men to love even their enemies : Muhammad in the Qur'&n commands men to "fight in the way of God to undertake Jihads. Christ said that " in the Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Matt. xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; Luke xx. 35); whereas the Qur'&n teaches that in Paradise there will be for Muslims almost unlimited indulgence in licentiousness.

It is not possible to refute this argument by asserting that the Holy Scriptures which Jews and Christians now possess have become corrupted : for in the earlier portion of this Treatise this statement has been fully answered. In connexion with any book which did not claim to be a Divine Revelation, as the Qur'in does, the matter could be easily explained. Everyone would agree that the compiler of the later book had been misled by incorrect information as to the contents of the earlier books: that his informants were ignorant men, who relied upon current fables instead of consulting the Bible itself. In the case of the Qur an, however, we are unwilling to draw any such conclusion. We prefer to ask our Muslim friends to decide the matter for themselves. Possibly the respected reader will admit that our study of the Qur'in has not hitherto furnished us with any conclusive proof of its inspiration.

If the Qur'Sn were from God Most High, its doctrines must in every instance be higher, more noble, more worthy of God, more lofty in their morality, than those of the Injil, just as those of the Injilare far more advanced in such matters than what was taught in the Taurat. But this is not so. For in the Injil the future reward promised to God's faithful people does not consist in eating and drinking and other carnal delights, but in spiritual joys, such as peace of heart, purity, the love of God and His service. Thus the Injil teaches us that those who in this world truly believe in Christ and remain steadfast in love and obedience to God, being faithful unto death, will finally be received into the high and holy place which Christ has prepared for them. Ever there dwelling in the Divine Presence, 1,1 His servants shall do Him service: and they shall see His face; and His Name shall be on their foreheads." The Injil forbids the use of force in religious matters, and leaves each man free to accept or reject the truth for himself. If any man desires to believe in Christ, the Holy Spirit's grace enables him to do so, and to receive new and spiritual birth, guidance, and salvation. Those who reject Christ are not forced to believe in Him, but are clearly told that by rejecting Him they are pronouncing their own condemnation.2 Again, the Gospel, in contrast with the Qur'dn, gives rest of heart and the assurance of acceptance with God to those who come to Him through Christ. Every true Christian knows this from his own experience. But, according to the Qur'&n, every man during his whole life must always remain in doubt and uncertainty whether he is not one of those unfortunate persons whom God has condemned to Hell-fire and created for that purpose. The Gospel («,1^1), in accordance with its name, proclaims the glad tidings that God has not created a single creature for eternal misery and destruction, but that, on the contrary, He " willeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth ",s and that, in order that this might be

1 Rev. xxii. 3, 4. ' John iii. 18-21.

5 1 Tim. ii. 4.

possible, He sent His only Son into the world,1 " that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life." Hence the Gospel clearly teaches that no man will be eternally lost except those who, refusing God's love and mercy offered them in Christ, will not believe in Him, nor recognize the truth of His claims, nor accept Him as the one true Saviour, the only true Mediator between God and man, but choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil, and receive not the love of the Truth that they may be saved.

If the Qur'in were God's last and most perfect Revelation to mankind, it ought to give us more worthy views of God's Holiness, Justice, and Mercy, more unselfish motives for obedience to God's Laws, deeper and more spiritual teaching regarding sin, the way of salvation, the need of spiritual holiness, God's love to us, and our need of love to Him, our duty to God and to our neighbour, the necessity of purity of heart, and a nobler and holier picture of life in Paradise, than does the New Testament. Those who have studied both the Qur'in and the Bible will perceive for themselves whether this is so or not.

In studying the contents of the Qur'in in order to learn whether it is or is not from God, the question arises : " How can we account for it, if it be not a Divine Revelation ? " A complete answer to this query is given in the Masadiru I Isldm [Yanabful Isldm : " Original Sources of the Qur'in "]. Learned men state that many of the tales found in the Qur'in, as well as many of the religious rites and ceremonies practised by Muslims, have been borrowed from other religions. The evidence in support of this statement will be found in the book we have named. In it the learned reader will discover extracts from the books of the Zoroastrians, the Hindus, the ancient Egyptians, and many other nations. These extracts seem to the author of the Masadiru'I Isldm to be in many cases

1 John iii. 16.

the originals from which much that is incorporated in the Qur'ân has been borrowed. He gives his reasons for concluding that much has also been derived from apocryphal and unreliable fables which in Muhammad's time were current among the more ignorant of the Jews and Christians, though no foundation for such tales exists in the Bible.

Besides all this, whoever will carefully peruse the verses by Zaid ibn 'Amr ibn Nufail, quoted by Ibn Ishâq and Ibn Hishâm in the Straiu'r Rasûl? will perceive that the following matters which are taught in the Qur'ân were taught by Zaid ibn 'Amr before Muhammad claimed to be a prophet. The points to which we refer are:—(1) The acknowledgement of God's Unity ; (2) the rejection of the worship of Allât, Al 'Uzzâ' and other deities worshipped by the heathen Arabs ; (3) the promise of happiness in Paradise ;

4. warning of the punishment of the wicked in Hell ;

5. denunciation of God's wrath upon unbelievers ;

6. the application of the titles Ar Rabb, Ar Rahman, A l Ghafûr, to God ; (7) the prohibition of the practice of burying infant girls alive. Besides this, Zaid ibn 'Amr and the other Hanîfs said that they were searching for the " Religion of Abraham ". Muhammad asserted that he was sent to invite men to turn to the " Religion of Abraham " ; and the Qur'ân repeatedly speaks of Abraham himself as a Hanîf.2 Moreover, the Kitâbul Aghânî^3 is in accord with the Sîratur Rasûi in making it evident that Muhammad had met and conversed with Zaid ibn 'Amr before laying claim to the prophetic office.

The author of the Masâdiru l Islâm adduces evidence to prove that the account of Muhammad's Night Journey in Sûrah xvii. 1, and in the Traditions is largely modelled on the story contained in the Old Persian book entitled Artâ-î Vîrâf Nâmak, telling how the pious young Zoroastrian ascended to the skies,

1 Vol. i, p. 77. ' Sûrahs iii. 89 ; iv. 124 ; vi. 162.

» Part III, p. 15.

and, on his return, related what he had seen, or professed to have seen.

The Arabic historian Abil'l Fidi mentions many old Arabian rites and observances which were adopted into Isl&m and are sanctioned in the Qur'Sn and Traditions. " The Arabs of the Times of Ignorance ", he 1 says, " used to do things which the religious law of Islam has adopted. For they used not to wed their mothers or their daughters, and among them it was deemed a most detestable thing to marry two sisters ; and they used to revile the man who married his father's wife, and to call him Daizan (^j-^). They used, moreover, to make the Pilgrimage (j^jJ) to the

House," i.e. the Ka'bah, "and visit the consecrated places, and wear the Ihr&m, and perform the Taww&f, and make the runs, and take their stand at all the Stations, and cast the stones." (Compare Stirahs xxii. 27, 28, 30; v. 98; ii. 139, 144, 145, 153, 190,192, 193- 195, &c.) Abti'l Fid£ speaks of other customs which were also adopted into Isldm from the heathen Arabs, such as ceremonial washings after certain kinds of defilement, parting the hair, paring the nails, &c. He says that the heathen Arabs used to practise circumcision and to cut off a thiefs hand. Of course some may assert with Ibn Ish&q 2 that these customs had been retained from Abraham's days. We know that this is true with regard to circumcision, but it cannot be proved regarding all the ceremonies above referred to. It is by no means contrary to reason to suppose that, in giving a new Revelation, God might sanction many rites already in use among the people to whom the Revelation came. But this would not agree with the theory that the Qur'An was written down on a Preserved Tablet in Heaven ages before such customs arose, and even before the heathen Arabs had come into existence.

1. Abfi'l Fida's yLJl ^Li.1 j^^.U ^ i^jiJl Leipzig, 1831, cd. Fleischer: cf. also A1 Kindt's Apology.

2. Siratur Rasul, Part I, p. 27.

It .s sometimes asserted by Muslims that the Qur'an teaches so much of the knowledge of God, of morality, of good government, and of the future life, that it must have come from God. Undoubtedly, if it taught something on these points far higher and better than the Bible does, this argument would have very great weight. But we have already seen that, regarding the Nature and Attributes of God Most High, the teaching of the Qur'&n is not in advance of that of the New Testament. In fact, in what the Qur'&n says of God's resolve to fill Hell with men and jinns,x His having fastened each man's fate upon his neck, His permission to Muhammad to indulge in licentious conduct to a greater extent than to ordinary Muslims, His commanding a Jihad for the spread of Islam, and many other matters of importance, the doctrines of the Qur'dn are manifestly at a far lower level than are those of the Law of Moses. The Old Testament nowhere positively sanctions polygamy, though for a time it was tacitly permitted among the Jews. But that monogamy has always been God's law for man is indicated in Gen. ii. 18-24, and clearly taught by Christ (Matt. xix. 3-9 ; Mark x. 2-12) and His Apostles (for example, in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12 ; 1 Cor. vii. 2). Christ prohibited even a lustful look on earth (Matt. v. 28), but the Qur'&n encourages Muslims to hope for almost unlimited indulgence in this vice, even before God's face in Paradise. This teaching is not likely to produce purity of heart here on earth. As to good government, we ask where it is now to be found in Muhammadan lands, or at what period in past history did it exist ? It would be interesting to have an answer to this question, and to learn exactly what connexion exists between such good government and the teachings of the Qur'&n.

It is perfectly true that the Qur'fin does tell us a great deal about the future life, especially about the tortures of Hell and the pleasures of Paradise. Regard- 1 Sflrahs xi. 120; xxxii. 13.

ing the former we need say nothing here. But we must remind our Muslim friends of two matters in connexion with Hell. One is the verse in Sfirah Maryam (Stirah xix. 72) which says: "And there is no one of you but goeth down into it; unto thy Lord it has become a determined decision." Many attempts to explain this away have been made by commentators. The other matter is, the Tradition that only one of the many sects into which I slim is divided is that which will be saved. These two points would render us, if we were Muslims, full of terror all our lives at the prospect of death and the Day of Judgement Hence perhaps it is that true Christians look forward with joy to the Resurrection-Day, while Muslims fear and dread its coming. With regard, however, to the pleasures which, the Qur'in tells us, are reserved in Paradise for the saved, we must not pass over them without some consideration of their nature. Descriptions of them are given in S&rahs ii. 23 ; iv. 60 ; xiii. 35 ; xxxvi. 55- 58; xxxvii. 39-47; xlvii. 16, 17; lv. 46-78; lvi. 11- 37; lxxvi. 5,11-22 ; lxxvii. 31-36 ; lxxxiii. 22-28. Besides all this, in Ghazzili's Ihyd 'Ulfimi'd Din, in the 'Ainu!I Hay&t, in the Tafsir i Tibydn and other books much fuller details are given, on the authority of Traditions. A1 BukhSrl in As Sakth sums up all the genuine Traditions that he could find on this and other subjects. But one of the fullest accounts is given in the MishkdtuH Masabih} under the heading " Description of Paradise and its People ". When we study all this, we learn that, according to the Qur'&n and the Traditions, the future bliss of Muslims will consist in being clad in splendid garments, reclining on gorgeous couches, eating sumptuous viands and delicious fruits, drinking exquisite wines which produce no headache, and in familiar intercourse with

[' Mishkdt, pp. 487-491. This passage should be given in all versions of the present work into Muhammadan languages. English readers will find a translation in my Religion of the Crescent, pp. m- 114. It is unnecessary to reproduce it here.] hosts of beautiful women. Such a Paradise is material, furnished with everything suitable for the gratification of men's sensual appetites, but there is no place in it for holy and pure-minded men and women. Pure- minded people would flee from it, as they would on earth from places of gluttony, drunkenness, and profligacy. A Paradise of this description is not such as would be provided by God, who is Holy, and whose Nature is averse from sin and all impurity. How can the human spirit, created to know and serve God, which should ever seek spiritual joy in the Love of its Maker and in nearness to Him, be gladdened and satisfied with such earthly delights as these ? Even on earth debauchees finally discover that sensual pleasures in the end produce loathing, not happiness. The description of Paradise given in the Qur'Sn cannot therefore be said to prove that the book has come from God. The commentator Muhiyyu'ddin, perceiving this, endeavours to show that all these descriptions have a mystical sense.[1] But the great mass of Muhamma- dans regard him as a heretic, and rightly consider that the Qur'&n means exactly what it says, as do the Traditions also.

In considering the contents of the Qur'in we must not omit to call attention to the fact that it does not satisfy the spiritual needs and yearnings of mankind, which is one of the main reasons why a Divine Revelation is required. For God has implanted these desires in man's heart in order that he may never be able to find rest, until he find it in God. Some Muslim writers claim that the Qur'in terrifies men and makes them weep, as the Tradition informs us that the Negus (^tUJUl) of Abyssinia (though doubtless ignorant of Arabic) did when a part of the Qur'dn was recited before him. But even such writers cannot truthfully assert that it gives them peace of heart, such as Christ throifgh all the ages has given and still gives 1 to those who truly believe in Him. On the contrary, certain passages in the Qur'in,—for instance Stirah xix. 71, 72,—together with the Doctrine of Fate, must make all thoughtful Muslims live in perpetual dread of death. Nor does the Qur'in reveal God to man in such a way that He may be known. This is clear from the way in which so many Muslim writers explain the absolute impossibility of knowing God, even in books intended for the instruction of their own people. For example, Akhyund Mulli Muhammad Taqqi of Kishin, in his book entitled Hid&yatut Tdlibin dar Ustilud Din? says: "To 3 know the Nature of the Necessarily Existent One is impossible"; and again: " Between the created and the Creator, the Conditioned and the Absolute, the recent and the Ancient, the temporal and the Eternal, there is no kind of resemblance, so that it should be possible to know His Nature. And it is on this account that our Prophet, who is superior to all the prophets, has said, ' We have not known Thee with due knowledge of Thee.' " Now it is clear that if the Qur'in does not lead to a knowledge of God, and if Muhammad himself rightly admitted that his own knowledge of God was far from being what it should have been, then I slim in this most important matter fails to supply man's needs.

Again, the Qur'in does not teach that purity of heart is necessary before any man can find access to God. On the contrary, as we have already seen, it contains passages which are opposed to the possi-

1 John xiv. 27. ' This work was finished in a. h. 1285.

jjl» U ■ ■ . Jls* iil- J». Jja^l cylj 5

C.»«~»'> wy"Jill l> J^li j ^¿Si l> \j Oil» j ^Jj I) \j yZ»* J

¿i -A* 1«_;;»*•> O-il cH' '}■ ) — w'i

.(pp. 41-43) ek&j«-* j** elU^e L. _ e*J uj/^i »♦•J^1 J-5^ bility of purity of heart in man, and which do not represent God as acting in a way consistent with His Holiness, Justice, Mercy, and Love. Nor does the Qur'án show how man may obtain pardon of his sins and be accounted righteous before God. It is true that certain precepts are given whereby merit may be acquired. But no means of escaping from Fate can be found in the Qur'án, and Fate decides every man's future happiness or misery. There is no Atonement in the Qur'án, nor does the Qur'án show how a man who is the slave of sin can break his chains.

Some Muslims hold that Muhammad will intercede for his people at the Judgement Day: others fancy that perhaps even now, though he is dead, he has some influence with God Most High. But all this is absolutely contrary to the Bible, which the Qur'án claims to confirm. From such verses as John xiv. 6; Acts iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6, it is clear that there is and can be no Mediator but Christ. Moreover, it would be hard to find a single passage in the Qur'án itself which lends support to the idea that Muhammad is a Mediator between God and man. We need not refer to the value of the Traditions on this subject, for one who is in the Qur'án bidden to pray for the forgiveness of his own sins cannot act as a mediator with God. A man who has sinned and repented may doubtless pray to God to forgive other men as well as himself; but that is quite a different matter. Both the Qur'án and the Traditions represent Muhammad as praying for forgiveness of both his own and his people's offences. For example, in Súrah xl. 37, it is thus written : " Therefore be thou patient; verily God's promise is truth, and ask pardon for thine offence, and proclaim the praise of thy Lord at even and early morn." So also in Súrah iv. 106: "Ask pardon of God: verily God has been forgiving, gracious." Somewhat similar are those verses in which the Qur'án states that God forgives Muhammad's offences, such as Súrah xlviii. 1, 2 : " Verily We have won for thee a manifest victory, in order that God may forgive thee what went before of thine offence, and what followed after." 'Abbisf explains this as meaning the offences which Muhammad had committed before he claimed to be a prophet, and those that he was to commit even until his death. A1 Baiziwi and other commentators say that the meaning is, the faults which he had committed in the Time of Ignorance and up to the date of the "descent" of these verses.[1] On the supposition that the Qur'in " descended " from God Most High, we have here very distinct statements about Muhammad. Nor can it be argued that the word " offence" (¿¿>1) used in the Qur'in means only lesser sins or slight faults which can hardly be called sins at all. For in S(irah lv. 39, the word in the plural is applied to the sins of both jinns and men. In SArah xxviii. 78 idolaters are said to be guilty of " offences" (v^'i), and the word is used as equal to jurm. The same word " offence " (^Jj) is used of such sins as lying, slander, lust, unbelief, and others of the worst crimes, in Stirahs xii. 29; lxvii. 11 ; xci. 14, and elsewhere. In SO rah xlvii. 21, Muhammad is thus addressed: " Ask pardon for thy offence, and for believing men and believing women." Here Muhammad's own offence is clearly distinguished as being his own personal fault and separate from those of his followers, though some have vainly attempted to explain " thy offence " as meaning " the offence of Muslim men and women". In Sdrah xciv. 1-3 God is represented as saying to Muhammad . " Did We not open thy breast for thee and remove from thee thy burden, which weighed down thy back ?" It is impossible to mistake the meaning of all these passages.

The Traditions agree with the Qur'in in this matter, whether we consult the books of the Sunnls or those of the Shl'ites. Let us take only a few examples out of many. Ahmad, At Tirmadhi, and Ibn Mijah tell us, on the authority of Fatimah, that, when Muhammad entered the Mosque, he said : " My [1] Lord, forgive me mine offences, and open to me the gates of Thy mercy" ; and when he came out he said, " My Lord, forgive me mine offences, and open to me the gates of Thy grace." 'Ayishah tells us another of his prayers, in which the words, " 0 God,2 forgive me," occur. In another place Muslim quotes on her authority Muhammad's saying : " O God,3 verily I take refuge in Thy good pleasure from Thy displeasure, and in Thy forgiveness from Thy punishment." Ahmad, At Tirmidhi, and Abft D&'Gd quote, on 'All's authority, Muhammad's prayer: " Verily^4 I have wronged my soul; therefore forgive me, for there is none that forgiveth offences but Thee." According to Abti Mtisi, Muhammad used to pray thus : " O God,6 forgive me my sin and my ignorance and my dissipation in my business, and what Thou knowest better than I do. O God, pardon me my earnestness and my joking and my error and my obstinacy, and all that is with me. O God, forgive me what went before and what came after, and what I have concealed and what I have made manifest." Besides this, A1 Baihaqi® in Ad Dawdtul Kabirah tells us, on the authority of 'Ayishah, that one day the latter said to Muhammad: " O Apostle of God, doth no one enter Paradise except through the mercy of God Most High ?" In reply he three times said, "No one enters Paradise except through the mercy of God Most High." She said, " Not even thou, O Apostle of God ? " Muhammad placed his hand on his head and replied, " Not even I, unless God decide upon it firmly from Himself for me through His mercy." This he said three times.

Imlm Ja'far tells us^7 that one night, when Muhammad was in Umm Salmah's dwelling and was engaged in prayer, he wept and said, " O Lord, turn me not back at all to wickedness, though Thou hast delivered me therefrom, and never leave me to myself for the twinkling of an eye." Umm Salmah said to him, " Since God has forgiven thee thy past and future sin, why dost thou speak thus and weep ? " He said, " O Umm Salmah, how should I become safe, since God Most High left Jonah to himself for the space of the twinkling of an eye, and he did what he did ? " And, again,1 Muhammad B&qir is quoted as the authority for the Tradition that one night Muhammad was in 'Ayishah's abode, and was offering many prayers. 'Ayishah asked him why he wearied himself so much, since God Most High had forgiven him his past and future sin. He replied, " O 'Ayishah, should I not be God's thankful servant ?" We are also told^2 that one day, at the close of an address to his followers, Muhammad repeatedly said, " O Lord, pardon me and my people," and added, " I seek pardon from God for myself and for you." Many other similar traditions might be quoted from both Sunnl and Shl'ite Traditions, but these are sufficient.

All this represents Muhammad in a very favourable light- It shows that, like all the Prophets who were merely men, he felt his need of God's mercy and forgiveness. The Qur'&n mentions certain sins as committed by the Old Testament Prophets and others, as for example by Adam,8 Noah,4 Abraham,6 Moses^8 and Aaron, Joseph,7 David,8 Solomon,9 Jonah.10 Doubtless they repented, as the Bible informs us they did. We have in Ps. li. the prayer which David, for instance, offered in his penitence, as was most suitable. Everyone who has sinned needs to repent and seek forgive-

1 Haydtu'l Quldi, vol. ii, p. 77. * Op. cii., p. 301.

- Sflrahs ii. 33, 34; xx. 119. * Sfirah lxxi. 29. ' Sflrahs vi. 76-78 ; ii. 262; xiv. 42.

- Sflrabs vii. 150; xxvi. 19; xxviii. 14, 15. 7 Sfirah xii. 24.

- Sfirah xxxviii. 23, 24. • Sfirah xxxviii. 34. 10 Sfirah xxxvii. 139-144.

ness from God, and the very fact of the request for pardon being made is an admission that the person who asks for it is guilty of an offence, and is conscience- stricken on account of it. Every human being who is no more than human might well use these prayers of Muhammad which we have quoted above. But no one who needs or has ever needed repentance can ever atone for other men's sins. Hence the Qur'&n teaches^1 that no human being can in this way aid anyone else on the Day of Judgement. As Muhammad, therefore, cannot save his people, it is evident that they need someone who can save them. The Qur'&n reveals no Saviour, no Atonement, and therefore cannot satisfy the wants of the human spirit. It fails in this and in every other point to fulfil the conditions laid down in the Introduction as the criteria of a true Revelation. In this it stands in striking contrast with the Injil, as has been shown in the Second Part of this Treatise. Christ is alive^2 and Muhammad is dead; Christ is not only perfect man and sinless, but the Word of God, and "3 able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them ".

Let it not be forgotten that throughout this Treatise our object is not controversy, but inquiry into and search for the Truth. Prejudice and party spirit in religious matters cannot help us. By God's grace they should be laid aside. In what has been said of the contents of the Qur'an, the writer of these pages has endeavoured with all his might to observe not only the r&les of courtesy but those of honesty and fairness. In what remains to be discussed in the following chapters his guiding principle will be the same.

1 Sfirahs ii. 46, 117; vi. 164; lxxxii. 19.

s Air Muslims know that His tomb at Medinah is empty: not so Muhammad's.

3 Heb. vii. 25.

U

CHAPTER V

AN INQUIRY INTO MUHAMMAD'S ALLEGED MIRACLES, IN ORDER TO LEARN WHAT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM TO BE A PROPHET OF GOD IS THEREBY AFFORDED

In order to prove that a man is really a prophet, it is by no means necessary to show that he wrought miracles. Many prophets have come without miraculous power, and, on the other hand, men who had no Divine commission have done what seemed miraculous. For instance, in Moses* time the magicians of Egypt did some things which to the polytheists of that country seemed quite as wonderful as Moses' miracles (Exod. vii. 10-13, 22; viii. 7, 18). Besides this, we are told of false prophets who shall work miracles (Mark xiii. 22 ; Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Rev. xvi. 13, 14 ; xix. 20), especially one who is still to come, and who is probably the Dajjil of whom Muslims speak. Of the true prophets, very few have wrought miracles. In the Old Testament miracles are not mentioned as wrought by anyone until the time of Moses. As Moses was not only a great prophet, but had also to introduce a new Revelation, he was empowered to work certain miracles mentioned in the Taurat. These were necessary to prove his claim to come with a message from God, to speak with God's authority, and to bring a Divine Revelation. Elijah and Elisha too had this power granted them, because they lived at a time when the true Religion was almost extinct, and because their task was to call the people back to their God. But we are not told that the power of working miracles was given to David, Jeremiah, or other leading prophets. Of John the Baptist, who was greater than any preceding prophet (Matt. xi. 11 ; Luke vii. 28), the Jews said, apparently with truth, "John did no miracle" (John x. 41). It is clear, therefore, that only at great crises, or when a new Revelation was being given, did God grant a great prophet the power of working miracles in proof of his Divine commission.

But, if Muhammad's claims were well-founded, he was the Seal of the Prophets, the last and greatest of them all, sent to the Arabs, a people among whom no prophet had ever before risen, as far as is known to us. He asserted that he was the bearer of an unique message from God, a Revelation greater than any that had preceded it, and that the Qur'&n which he recited had been dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel, who on the Night of Power had brought it down from the highest heaven, where it had been inscribed by God's command upon a Preserved Tablet. Moreover, Muhammad claimed that his message was for all men, and was never to be superseded. It was necessary, therefore, that he should work miracles in order to substantiate this lofty claim. Otherwise his claim could not be proved true, since (as has been shown above) he uttered no prophecies. We naturally therefore inquire what miracles he wrought.

Here the Qur'&n itself gives us a very clear and concise answer. He wrought none. This is evident from not a few passages. One of the most decisive of these is Silrah xvii. 61: "And nought hindered Us from sending the signs except that the ancients called them false." In his Commentary upon this verse A1 Baiz&wi says^1: " Nothing turned Us from sending the signs which the Quraish demanded except the fact that the ancients called thern false, those who were like them in disposition, like 'Ad and Thamild: and verily, if they had been sent, they would surely have called them false, just as those people did, and would have rendered their own extirpation necessary, according as Our rule runs: and We had decreed that We would

1 Vol. i, p. 543. u 2

not extirpate them, because among them are those who will believe, or who shall beget those who will believe." 'Abb&si gives very much the same explanation of the passage. In fact, there can be no doubt about its meaning. It tells us that God had not given Muhammad the power of working such miracles as the Quraish demanded, because He knew that the latter would refuse to accept him as a prophet, even were his claims thus supported.

1 Vol. i, p. 81.

Besides this there are other verses which somewhat less clearly state the same thing. For instance, in Stirah ii. 112, 113, it is written : " And those who know not have said, ' (We shall not believe) unless God speak to us, or there come to us a sign.' Thus spake those who were before them, the like of their speech : their hearts were similar. We have made the signs clear to a people that seeks certainty. Verily we have sent thee with the truth as an evangelist and as a Warner." On this passage A1 Baiz&wi says^1 that the Quraish were dissatisfied because signs did not come to them. Instead of those which the people demanded, in the second part of ver. 112 they are offered verses of the Qur'an as a proof of Muhammad's mission, That the "signs" (i^UNl) in this part of the verse mean this is clear from the context, and also from Sflrah ii* 146 : "According as we have sent among you an Apostle from among yourselves, who reads aloud over you Our^2 signs (LslSt*)" These "signs" then were not wonderful works or miracles, such as his opponents demanded, they were merely verses of the Qur'&n, for otherwise the verb " reads aloud " would have no proper meaning. So too in Stirah ii. 253 : " Those are God's signs: We read them aloud over thee in truth, and verily thou art indeed of the Messengers "; and in Siirah ii. 93 : " And indeed We have sent down unto thee evident signs, and none shall disbelieve in them except the dissolute." The verb " We have sent down "

s Compare also Sfirah xxix. 50.

(G3p*) shows that the "evident signs" are Qur'&nic verses, which are always spoken of as " sent down". Similarly in Stirah vii. 202, the word £jtz, " sign," clearly means a verse of the Qur'&n. It is possible that the meaning of Silrah vi. 124—"And when there came to them a sign they said, ' We shall never believe until we are brought the like of what the Apostles of God were brought'—is that the Quraish demanded, instead of verses of the Qur'Sn, some such miracles as those which some of the Prophets and Apostles had wrought. This is supported^1 by SClrah vi. 37, and still more clearly by Stirah vi. 109: "And they swore by God, the utmost of their oaths, Surely if a sign come-to them they will surely believe in it. Say thou : ' Verily the signs are with God, and what will make you understand that, if they come, they will not believe ?'" This amounts to a declaration that Muhammad had not been given the power of working miracles. The kind of sign which the Quraish demanded is clearly shown in Silrah xiii. 30 : " 'And if there were a Qur'dn by which the mountains would be removed or the earth cleft or the dead addressed . . .!' Say thou : ' To God be- longeth the matter altogether.'" In his commentary on this passage A1 Baizawi tells us at length what was the challenge which the Quraish offered to Muhammad on this occasion. In Silrah xvii. 92-95 we find something similar: " And they said,' Never shall we believe thee, until thou causest a fountain to spring forth from the earth for us, or till thou shalt have a garden of palm-trees and grapes: therefore shalt thou cause the rivers to gush forth according to their nature in gushing forth; or till thou shalt cause the sky to fall upon us in fragments, as thou hast fancied, or till thou bring God and the angels as a surety; or till thou hast a house of gold, or thou climbest up into the sky; and we shall never believe in thy climbing up, until thou shalt cause to descend upon us a book which we shall

1 A demand for a miracle is made also in SOrahs x. 21; xiii. 8, 27, and in other places.

read.' Say thou : ' Praise be to my Lord : have I been aught but a human being, an Apostle ?' " From this passage it is clear that the Quraish were not satisfied with the statement (verse 90) that the Quran could not be equalled, and was a sufficient proof of Muhammad's commission. Hence they demanded a miracle of the kind here mentioned. In reply Muhammad is told to say that, being merely a man, he could not show such a miracle as they desired. Hence it is clear that the accounts of the Miraj and of the water which Muhammad is said in certain Traditions to have caused to gush forth from the ground, and even from his fingers,1 cannot be relied upon, since, if they were historical, no such answer would have been given to the demands of the Quraish as is given in this passage. Instead of this, the answer would have been a declaration of his ability to do such things. In SGrah xxix. 49, 50, we find the same demand for a miracle, and the same refusal to give any sign except the Qur an itself. "And they said, ' Unless there be sent down upon him signs from his Lord . . .' Say thou : ' Verily the signs are with God, and verily I am an evident warner.' Hath it not sufficed them that We have sent down upon thee the Book ? It is being read aloud over them : verily in that is surely mercy and warning to a people whq believe."

From these passages it is clear that the Quran teaches us that Muhammad had no power to work miracles, and that the verses of the Qur'an (for this very reason called "signs"—^l/) are sufficient proof^2 of his being a Prophet. We have already in a previous^3 chapter inquired into this matter, and have seen that something more than mere elegance of style is needed to prove that a book has really been sent down from God Most High.

Some Muslims, however, assert that in the Qur'an itself two special miracles of Muhammad are definitely

1 See pp. 318, 319. 2 Surah xvii. 90.

" See above. Part III, ch. iii.

mentioned. One of these is the alleged Splitting of the Moon. It is true that in Surah liv. i it is written : " The Hour hath drawn near, and the moon hath been split." But for many reasons this verse does not prove that any such miracle was wrought by Muhammad, (i) If it meant this, it would contradict Surah xvii. 61 ; whereas Muslims deny that there is any self-contradiction in the Qur an. (2) Muhammad is not mentioned in this verse in connexion with the splitting of the moon: neither in SOratu'l Qamar nor in any other Surah is he said to have had anything whatever to do with it. Nor does the Qur'in call it a miracle, nor does it say that the Splitting of the Moon was in any way a sign of Muhammad's Divine commission. If the Qur'in had meant that Muhammad wrought so stupendous a miracle, it would have said so, just as the Old Testament and the New clearly record certain definite miracles wrought by Moses, Christ, and His Apostles respectively. (3) If Muhammad had split the moon asunder, the Qur'in would certainly have stated this in answer to the demands of the Quraish in Sfirahs xiii. 30 and xvii. 92-95, for commentators agree in holding that Stirah liv. " descended" before either of these two. (4) Injury done to a creature of God like the moon would be a sign of great power, but it would not necessarily prove that the person who exercised that power had a commission from God. (5) Had any such phenomenon occurred, it would have been observed all over the earth, and would have been recorded in the histories of many nations as a most astounding event. Those who know from Astronomy the size of the moon, and what effect its splitting in two and the wide separation of the portions from one another would have had upon the earth, will not contend that this really occurred. (6) Moreover, no history records such an event, or even the appearance of the moon being split in two, and some leading Muslim commentators deny that the Sfiratu'l Qamar implies that anything of the kind ever occurred. A1 Baiziwi, in his commentary on Silrah liv. i, prefers^1 the view that the moon waso actually split asunder because of the reading JlilT ¿li! ^ (which,2 however, differs from that adopted in the usual text of the Qur'&n), but he informs us that " If has been said that its meaning is, It will be split on the day of the Resurrection". Now there could be no doubt whatever about the matter, had it actually occurred, and were the Tradition^3 correct that states that Muhammad showed the people of Mecca the moon split in two, so that Mount Hir& was visible between the parts, or, as another Tradition^4 says, one part appeared above the mountain and the other beneath it. In the margin of the Mishkdt an attempt is made to avoid the obvious difficulty caused by the fact that the world in general did not notice the strange sight. The writer of the note says that the event occurred at night when men were asleep, and in a moment, and that therefore it would not necessarily be observed in all parts of the world. (7) The expression " The Hour" (LcLJl),with the definite Article, has a very distinct and special meaning in both the QurAn^5 and the Traditions.8 It always in them means the day of the Resurrection, as AI Baiz^wi admits. Now it is clear that the Resurrection Day was not near at the time when the SClratu'l Qamar was written, for this S ft rah was dictated a long time ago, before the Hijrah itself. Hence, as in this verse the Splitting of the Moon is said to be so closely associated with the Resurrection Day's approach, the meaning must be that, when the Resurrection draws nigh, the moon will be split. Both the verbs in the past tense in the verse

1. Vol. ii, p. 296.

2. This is Hudhaifah's reading, as Zamakhshari tells us in his commentary. He thus renders the verse : " The Hour has drawn nigh, and of the signs of its approach this has already arrived, that the moon has been split."

3. From Anas, Mishkdt. p. 516.

4. From Ibn Mas'fld : ibidem.

1 Compare Sflrahs xx, xxii, xlii, &c.

6 Compare Mishkdt, pp. 464-469, &c., &c.

are thus used with a future signification which is a usual idiom in Arabic. We have seen that, even in Al Baizáwi's time, some people thus explained the verse ; and the very fact that we are still alive to-day, so many years later, shows that this sign of the approach of the Resurrection Day had not then appeared. Hence 'Abbásí well says that the Splitting of the Moon and the appearance of Dajjál will be signs of the nearness of the Resurrection, when they occur.

From all this we see that the Qur'án does not assert that Muhammad performed the miracle of Splitting the Moon. Therefore this verse cannot justly be quoted as a proof that he wrought • such a miracle, nor can a miraculous event which has not yet occurred be adduced as a proof that Muhammad^1 was an Apostle sent by God.

The one other miracle of Muljammad which some suppose to be referred to in the Qur'án is an event which some assert to have occurred at the battle of Badr, though others deny this and say that it took place at the battle of Hunain, or at Uhud, or at Khaibar. It is said that a miracle is referred to in the words: " And thou threwest not when thou didst throw, but God threw " (Súratu'l Anfál—Súrah viti.—ver. 17). Al Baizáwt informs^2 us that Gabriel told Muhammad at Badr to cast a handful of earth at the Quraish. When the battle was joined, he threw some gravel in their faces, saying, " Let the faces be disfigured." Then their eyes all became full of the gravel, and they fled, pursued by the Muslims. When the latter were afterwards boasting of their victory and of the number they had slain, this verse is said to have been sent

1 In some Arabic editions of the Muallaqdt, in a poem ascribed to Imra'u'l Qais, are found the words: ^«alT icLJI which

exactly agree in meaning with the first verse of Súratu'l Qamar. As Imra'u'l Qais died about a. d. 540, considerably before Muhammad's birth, it is clear that he did not quote from the Qur'án. Some deny that the poem referred to is really by Imra'u'l Qais. But many of the Ulamá' are puzzled about the matter.

8 Vol. i, p. 362.

down. A1 Baiz&wi says that it means: " And thou threwest not, [O Muhammad, a throw which thou wouldest cause to reach their eyes, and thou couldest not do so], when thou didst throw [i.e. when thou earnest with the appearance of throwing], but God threw [effected what was the object of the throw, and caused it to reach the eyes of them all]." But A1 Baiz&wl adds : " It is said that its meaning is, ' Thou didst not cast fear when thou didst cast the gravel, but God cast fear into their hearts.' And it is said that it came down in reference to a spear with which he [1] pierced Ubai ibn Khalaf on the day of Uhud, and there proceeded no blood from him^2; he began to grow feeble until he died : or about the shooting of the arrow which he^1 shot on the day of Khaibar near the fortress ; it reached Kindnah^3 ibn Abl'l ft uqaiq on his horse. And the great majority are in favour of the first view." From this commentary it is clear that there is no certainty that the passage which we are considering refers to Badr. In fact, it may refer to Uhud or Khaibar, and not to the gravel which Muhammad threw, but to an arrow which he shot or a spear which he hurled. But in any case it does not prove that a miracle was wrought by Muhammad on any one of these occasions. Nay, the passage denies that Muhammad succeeded in casting the gravel into his adversaries' eyes or in killing Ubai or Kinanah, saying that the agent was not Muhammad, but God. If we accept the verse as referring to the battle of Badr, we must remember that it is not at all a rare thing for a general to act in some such way, in order to encourage his followers and disconcert his foes. If the result is a victory, no one ever fancies that it is thereby proved that there was anything supernatural or miraculous about the action referred to. Nor can the shooting of a man with an arrow or the piercing of a man with a spear (if we accept the other traditions) be regarded as miraculous.

Besides these two passages some Muslims are of opinion that the words " evident signs" (^Llo ^AM«) which occur in certain other places in the Quran, imply that miracles were really wrought by Muhammad. If so, it is very strange that in no such passage does a description of any such miracle or a single detail regarding it occur. When the Qur an refers to Christ's miracles, on the contrary, it tells what some of them were (Sfirah iii. 43). But let us examine some of the passages in which it is asserted that the words " evident signs' denote miracles of Muhammad.

One of these is SGrah lxi. 6 : " Accordingly, when he came to them with the evident [signs], they said, ' This is manifest sorcery.' " This may refer to what is said in the context regarding the promise of the coming of someone called Ahmad.1 Or it may refer to Jesus, who is mentioned in the former part of the verse. A1 Baiz&wi takes the latter view, for in his commentary 2 he says : " The reference is to that with which he came, or to himself: and the entitling it sorcery is by way of hyperbole. And this view is supported by the reading of Hamzah and A1 Kas&'i, ' This is a sorcerer'; so that the reference is to Jesus." If this commentator's explanation is cprrect, then this verse cannot be said to prove anything about Muhammad's miracles. Otherwise here and elsewhere the "evident signs" denote the verses of the Qur'&n, which (as we have already pointed out) are in passage after passage called " signs " and " evident signs".

Should any one say that the mention of " sorcery" or " sorcerer " in SQrah lxi. 6, shows that some supernatural work was performed, and that such words could not be used regarding eloquent verses like those of the Qur'in, the answer can readily be given from the Quran itself. For example, in Sfirah xxxviii. 3, we read : " They wondered that there had come to

1 No such promise is to be found in the Gospel. 2 Vol. ii, p. 330.

them a warner from among themselves, and the unbelievers said, ' This is a sorcerer, a liar.' " In SGrah xliii. 29, we read : " And when the truth came to them, they said, ' This is sorcery, and verily we are unbelievers in it.' Here A1 Baiz&wi says,1 " Accordingly they named the Qur'&n sorcery." And again, in SGrah xlvi. 6, it is thus said: " And when Our signs are read aloud over them as evidences, those who disbelieved the truth when it has come to them have said, ' This is manifest sorcery.'" In this passage we find exactly the same expression as in Silrah lxi. 6. Moreover, A1 Baiziwi^2 explains " the truth" here as " the verses ".

Many Muslims urge that in the Traditions (^jLa-l) many strange miracles are attributed to Muhammad. Doubtless this is true, as we shall see. But the question of the reliability of the Traditions in reference to this matter must be considered, before we accept their evidence as a proof that such miracles were actually wrought. In the first place, as we have seen, the Quran itself not only does not mention any of Muhammad's miracles, but it even explains why God did not give him miracle-working power. To the thoughtful and learned man, whether Muslim or Christian, this evidence of the Qur'dn far outweighs any number of Traditions. Moreover, while it is easy to understand why in later times traditions arose which ascribed miracles to Muhammad, on the other hand it is quite impossible to imagine that these verses of the Qur'in which show that he wrought no miracle could have been interpolated or corrupted in order to deny his miracles, if he had worked any such. Secondly, those who compiled the Traditions had no personal knowledge of the events which they recorded. They lived some hundreds of years after Muhammad's time, and therefore had to rely upon statements repeated orally and said to be traceable to trustworthy witnesses. The collectors of the

1 Vol. ii, p. 238. 2 Vol. ii, p. 254.

Traditions contained in the Sikdhus Sitiah died at[1]the following dates : Bukhiri, a.11. 256; Muslim, a.h. 261; Tirmidhi, a.h. 279; Abu DaOd, a.h. 275; An Nasai, a.h. 303; Ibn Majah, a.h. 273. Among the Shi'ites the chief works on the. subject belong to still later dates : the Kafi of Abii Ja'far Muhammad to a.h. 329; the Man Id yastahdirahu I Faqth of Shaikh 'Ali to a.h. 381 ; the Tahdhib of Shaikh Abti Ja'far to a.h. 466; the Istibsar to a.h. 406 ; and the Nahjul Balaghah of Sayyid Radi to a.h. 406. The fact that the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, while accepting the same Qur'&n, cannot agree upon the same collections of Traditions, shows how unreliable Tradition is when it contradicts the Quran. The Traditions given by Bukhari in his Sahih are probably the most reliable of all; next come those accepted by Muslim and Tirmidhi. But, in order to show the honoured reader of these pages what an immense number of unreliable Traditions were current even in Bukhari's time, and how very much credulous imagination or falsehood then prevailed, it will suffice if we remind him that Bukh&ri himself informs us that he collected 100,000 Traditions, which he thought might be correct, and 200,000 unreliable ones. Out of the whole 300,000, he finally held only 7,275 to be trustworthy ; and, when he had eliminated repetitions, these were reduced to 4,ooo.[2] Even these are not all trustworthy, for thev often contradict one another, and sometimes even a. contrary to the Qur'&n, as in this matter of Muhammad's miracles. Abtl Da'tld collected 500,000 Traditions, but accepted only 4,000 of them.[3]

But let us adduce some of these asserted miracles that their nature may be clearly seen.

(1) Bukhfiri, on what he considers good authority, tells[4] the following tale. " The Prophet sent a company to Aba Raft'. Accordingly 'Abdullah ibn 'Utaik entered his house against him by night when he was asleep, and slew him. Therefore 'Abdu'llih ibn 'Utaik said: ' And I placed my sword in his belly until it reached his back, and I knew that I had killed him. Then I began to open the doors, until I reached a staircase. Then I put down my foot, and I fell in the moonlit^1 night, and my leg was broken. I bound it up with a bandage and set out for my companions, and I came to the Prophet and I told him." Then he said, ' Stretch out thy foot.' I stretched out my foot; he rubbed it, and it became as if I had never broken it.'" We^2 shall see further on in the next chapter what light this incident throws on Muhammad's character. Here we note that the tale of the killing of Abil Rifi' is related also by Ibn Hishim,8 Ibn Athir,4 and by the Author of the Rauzatus Sa/d.5 The tales differ considerably, some saying that the murderer's leg was broken, some his arm, and some that he had only sprained his wrist. Some forms of the story say nothing whatever about Muhammad's having cured the injury,6 and hence they do not recognize that anything miraculous occurred. All, however, admit that the killing of the sleeping man was per formed at Muhammad's instigation. Under these circumstances, had Muhammad wrought a miracle, we should have been confronted with an immense moral difficulty, if we tried to prove that it was Divine aid that enabled a miracle to be wrought for the benefit of a murderer like 'Abdu'llih ibn 'Utaik.

(2) Many different and contradictory accounts are given of how Muhammad supplied water to his followers when thirsty. Of these a considerable number appear

1 The margin of the Mishkdt explains that, in the moonlight, he mistook the steps for the ground.

' See below, ch. vi, pp. 338-340.

® SHratu'r Rastil, vol. ii, pp. 162, 163.

- Vol. ii, pp. 55, 56. * Vol. ii, pp. 102 sqq.

- There is no record of a miracle in Ibn Hisham's account, nor in that given by Ibn Athir.

in the Mishkat. As a specimen of these we may quote the following Tradition, which is given ' upon Jabir's authority : " The men were thirsty upon the day of A1 Hudaibiyyah, and the Apostle of God had in his hands a small skin water-bottle, from which he was performing religious ablutions. Then the men approached him. They said, ' We have no water to perform ablutions with and to drink, except what is in thy water-bottle.' Accordingly the Prophet dipped his hand into the water-bottle, and the water began to bubble out from between his fingers like fountains. We drank therefore, and performed our ablutions." It was said to J&bir, " How many were you ? " He said, "If we had been ioo,ooo, it would surely have been enough for us. We were i ,500." Other accounts say the number was 1,400 ; others say between 1,400 and 1,500; others 1,300; or 1,600; or 1,700. Ibn 'Abb&s says 1,525. Another very different version of the story is given by Bukh&ri^1 on the authority of A1 BarS. ibn 'Azib. He said : " We were, with the Apostle of God, fourteen hundred on the day of A1 Hudaibiyyah; and A1 Hudaibiyyah is a well. We had exhausted it, and had not left in it a drop. The Prophet arrived and came to it. He sat down upon its edge. Then he asked for a vessel of water. He performed his religious ablutions. Then he rinsed his mouth and prayed. Then he poured it" (i.e. what was left of the water) "into it" (i.e. into the well). " Then he said, ' Leave it alone for a time.' Accordingly they drew ' water for themselves and for their steeds until they^2 marched away." Now the honoured reader will perceive that it is not a miracle for water to collect in a well when it has been left alone for a time ; and this is a very different matter from causing water enough to satisfy the needs of 100,000 men to flow from between a man's fingers.3

1 Mishkdi, p. 524.

3 Other forms of the story are given in Mishkdi, pp. 529, 530.

' See p. 310 above.

3. Quite a number of stories tell how trees and stones saluted Muhammad as the Apostle of God, and how trees followed him or moved at his command. From these we select one, though modesty requires the omission of some words in it. The story is told by Muslim,1 on the authority of J&bir : " We travelled with the Apostle of God until we descended into a spacious valley. . . . And lo ! two trees at the edge of the valley. . . . The Apostle of God took hold of a branch of one of them, and said, ' Follow me, with God's permission.' Accordingly it followed him, like the camel with a nose-ring which comes slowly after its guide, until he came to the other tree. He took hold of one of its branches and said, ' Follow me, with God's permission.' And it followed him thus, until he was in the midst of the space between them. He said, ' Meet above me, with the permission of God.' Then they met." J£bir goes on to say that, glancing aside quietly he himself saw that, when Muhammad had done with the trees, they returned to their places.

4. As a specimen of another class of asserted miracles we select the following, given by Anas.2 " Verily there was a man who used to write for the Prophet. Then he apostatized from IslAm and joined the Polytheists. Accordingly the Prophet said: ' Verily the earth shall not receive him.' Abti Talhah therefore informed me that he came to the land in which the man had died, and found him cast out. He said, ' What is the matter with this man ?' They said, ' We have buried him several times, and the earth would not receive him.' " Muslim men of learning have never been able to agree who this unfortunate man was.

5. On the authority of the same J&bir, A1 Bukh&rl tells the following story.3 " The Prophet, when preaching, had leaned on the trunk of a date-palm, one of the columns of the Mosque. When, therefore, the pulpit

1 Mishkdt, p. 525. » Ibid., pp. 527, 528.

3 Ibid., p. 538.

was made for him and he stood upon it, the date-palm by which he was wont to preach cried out so that it was near splitting. Accordingly the Prophet descended till he took it and pressed it to him. Then it began to wail with the wailing of the babe which is being soothed to silence, until it was pacified. He said, ' It wept because it was not [any longer] listening to the Warning.' " 1

3. At Tirmidhi and Ad Ddrimi^2 relate the following tale on the authority of 'Alt ibn Abt Talib. " I 3 was with the Prophet at Mecca. We went out into one of its neighbouring districts. No mountain or tree met him that did not say, ' Peace be upon thee, O Apostle of God.' "

4. Ibn 'Abb&s is the authority for the following. " Verily * a woman brought a son of hers to the Apostle of God, and she said : ' O Apostle of God, verily my son has a demon in him, and verily he surely seizes him at our breakfast and our supper.' Therefore the Apostle of God rubbed his chest and prayed. Accord- ingly [the child] vomited, and there came out from within him as it were a black whelp."

5. Ad Dariml tells^6 the story of how Muhammad on one occasion called a thorn-tree to come to him. It came, ploughing up the ground, and stood before him : and at his bidding it thrice recited the words, " There is no god but God alone : He hath no partner : and Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle."

6. At Tirmidhi vouches for the truth of the tale that,5 at Muhammad's command, a bunch of dates fell from a date-palm, to prove to an Arab of the Desert that Muhammad was a Prophet. Then, at his bidding, the bunch of dates returned to its former position on the tree.

7. In the First Part of the Turkish work entitled

[' One of the titles of the Qur an.]

* Died a.h. 500, according to Kash/u: Zunun, vol. ii,. p. 37.

3 Mishkat, p. 532. 4 l'oid., pp. 532, 533.

5 Ibid., p. 533.

Mir'ât i Kâinât we read the following^1 wonderful narrative. "A miracle. In the Books of Biographies of Muhammad it is written that, when the Apostle was coming from Tâ'if to Mecca, a cloud came over his head. Gabriel appeared and said, ' God Most High, having heard the words of thy nation and that they have rejected thee, has sent to thee the angel who is commissioned to keep guard over the mountains, that thou mayest tell him what thy command is.' Thereupon that angel saluted him and said, ' O Muhammad, thy Lord has sent me to thee that thou mayest tell me what thy bidding is. Therefore, if thou biddest, I shall join the two mountains to one another, in order that the unbelievers, remaining between them, may perish.' The Apostle said : ' Nay, I entreat of God Most High that from their loins may proceed a posterity which will worship God alone, and will not associate a partner with Him.' "

It is not necessary to quote any more of such tales as these. Those who have a taste for them will find abundance of them in such books as the Rauzatus Safâ,2 the Rauzatu'l Ahbâb, and the Jâmïul Mujï- zât in Persian, in the Mirât i Kâinât in Turkish, and in other Arabic works besides those we have previously mentioned. Stories of this kind abound in the books of the Hindûs and other heathens, and are still believed by ignorant idolaters in many lands ; but they differ in their whole style and character from the genuine miracles recorded in the Injîl, to which the Qur'ân bears witness. Some of these Traditions put us in mind of the tales told in the Thousand and One Nights, and they prove that in earlier times also the Arabs possessed lively imaginations and great power of romiancing. Be it noted, however, that such miracles as some of those which we have quoted were exactly of the kind which the Quraish demanded from Muhammad. Had he wrought them, then undoubtedly

1 Mir'ât i Ktf indt, Part I, p. 415.

' Vol. ii, pp. 133 sqq., and pp. 217 sqq.

the Qur'&n would have mentioned some of them. Instead of doing so, it tells us that he was not a Ruler but a Warner, and also informs us why God did not give him the power to work miracles at all.

If our honoured readers will carefully read the accounts which the New Testament gives of the miracles wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, they will perceive how totally they differ in kind from those which, in opposition to the Qur'&n, the Traditions attribute to Muhammad. The New Testament miracles are not merely astounding occurrences, contrary to Nature (such as a tree walking and talking, a wooden column crying out and wailing like a babe, a murderer's broken leg or arm made well with a touch, &c.); they are acted parables, full of spiritual instruction, works of Divine mercy as well as of Divine might, such as the cleansing of lepers, opening the eyes of the blind, raising the dead, &c. (Matt. xi. 4, 5 ; Luke vii. 22). But Christ's miracles of healing were never wrought to save a murderer from one of the results of his crime. Nor did He devote Divine power to the task of making trees walk about and stones cry out.

Besides this, the records which contain the account of Christ's miracles were compiled at latest during no long period after His Ascension, during the lifetime of many of His immediate disciples. These records were drawn up, under Divine guidance, in some cases by the disciples themselves (the Gospels of Matthew and John), in others by their authority (the Gospels of Mark and Luke). There is also good reason to believe that brief accounts of Christ's wonderful works as well as of His words were in some cases set down in writing at the time of their occurrence. On the other hand, the miracles which the Traditions ascribe to Muhammad were not recorded in writing until hundreds of years after his death. In the Injil, Christ Himself refers to His own mighty^1 works as a proof of His Divine Com- 1 Compare John x. 25, 32, 37, 38; xiv. 11, 12 ; xv. 24.

X 2

mission ; whereas in the Qur'in, on the contrary, the occurrence of Muhammad's miracles is denied,1 while Christ's are acknowledged.2

Here we may state concisely some other great differences between Christ's miracles and those which the Traditions ascribe to Muhammad.

" There 3 is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be the original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers,and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief in those accounts ; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct."

There is no satisfactory evidence that persons professing to be the original witnesses of Muhammad's reported miracles have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and properly in consequence of their belief in these accounts.

The compilation of Muhammadan Traditions took place at so late a date, and their contents are in many cases so strange, that no scholar can rely upon them with any certainty with regard to miracles, though they may be more reliable in reference to other matters connected with Muhammad. The statements about such subjects made in the Mishkdt, the Haydtu'I Yaqhi, the 'Ainu I Haydt, and in still more popular books circulated among both Sunnis and Shl'ites, are so very extraordinary that they cast doubt upon all the Traditions. For instance, it is said that virgins grow up out of the ground, like roses, on the banks of the rivers of Paradise, and are gathered by Muslims at their pleasure. We are told that in Paradise birds ready cooked descend upon tables, and fly away again when the Muslims have eaten of them as much as they desire. It is said that, when God wished to create Adam, He sent Gabriel to bring a handful of clay from

1 Sfirah xvii. 6i. 1 e.g. in Surah iii. 43.

[' Pale/s Evidences of Christianity, Proposition I: cf. Prop. II.]

the earth for that purpose. The Earth adjured him by God not to take any of her substance, and he returned empty-handed. But finally Azrall took it by force. Muhammad is said to have stated that there is an angel in the form of a cock, whose feet stand at the bottom of the seventh storey of the earth, while his head reaches up to the threshold of God's Throne. Elsewhere it is stated that when Eve wished to eat some wheat, the plant grew 500 years' journey high, in order to escape her. It is also said that the distance between the shoulders and the ears of the Porters of the Throne is seventy years' journey.

Moreover, among the Shi'ites at least it is admitted by the learned that there is contradiction between Traditions and uncertainty which, if any, are reliable. This is clear from the following passage in the Kafi of Abti Ja'far Muhammad on the authority of 'Ali ibn Ibrahim : " Once 1 I said to 'Ali, ' Regarding the Traditions which are from Muhammad, I hear that they are contrary to one another and even to the Qur'dn, so that thou thyself also dost not deem them reliable.' And I asked him, ' What is the reason of this, and under these circumstances how is it possible to find a correct Tradition ?'" Then 'Ali ibn Abl Tilib in reply stated some rules for distinguishing between correct and incorrect Traditions. Still dissatisfied, 'Ali ibn Ibrahim said to him : " ' If [the sages and Qazis] all agree on both [contradictory] Traditions ?' He said : ' One should notice the one towards which their sages and Qizis are not most inclined ; then let him leave it and cling to the other.' He said : ' And if their sages all agree upon both the Traditions ?' He said : ' If it be so, then wait until your Im&m comes, for verily to remain amid doubts is better than to comprehend in perishing.'" 2

[' The Arabic is quoted in p. 213 of the Arabic edition of the unrevised Mizdnul Haqq, published by Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1874.]

2 See also Sheikh Ja'far's Treatise (jJLA ch. xxxv.

On the whole, then, we conclude that Muhammad's claim to the prophetic office was not substantiated by any miracles, as the Qur'in distinctly proves ; the miracles mentioned in the Traditions being in themselves too absurd, too contrary, in some instances, to the Qur'in, and too ill-corroborated to be accepted as having really occurred.

CHAPTER VI

AN EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN PARTS OF MUHAMMAD'S CONDUCT, AS REFERRED TO IN THE QUR'AN AND DESCRIBED BY MUSLIM HISTORIANS AND COMMENTATORS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN TO WHAT DEGREE HIS CLAIM TO THE PROPHETIC OFFICE IS THEREBY SUBSTANTIATED

We must now turn to the consideration of some of Muhammad's actions and certain details of his conduct, in order to see whether these were such as to confirm his claim to have been sent by God as a Prophet and an Apostle. Regarding these matters it is right and fitting that we should speak with the greatest courtesy and regard for the feelings of our Muslim readers. Hence we shall not quote the statements of Greek and other Christian writers, but only those of Muslim authors of repute. Nor shall we venture to express any judgement of our own upon the subject, remembering the saying of St. Paul : " Who [1]art thou that judgest the servant of another ? to his own lord he standeth or falleth." We are all servants of God, and He alone is the Judge of all men. But it is inevitable that each of us should have his opinion upon this subject, even though he may not be called upon to express it. In order that our honoured readers may know the facts of the case, and so be able to judge for themselves whether Muhammad was or was not what Muslims believe him to have been, we proceed to lay before them a few quotations from the Quran itself, together with the explanations of them given by some of the leading Muslim commentators, lest there should be any uncertainty about their meaning. In addition to these we shall adduce certain statements made by leading Muslim biographers of Muhammad and historians, together with commonly accepted Traditions, in order that it may be clear how he acted after he had gained power through his alliance with the tribes of Aus and Khazraj at Medinah and their conversion to Islam. We must entreat our readers to remember that we are not expressing our own opinions, but merely quoting what Muslim authorities state on these points.

The matters which we have selected for investigation are : (i) Muhammad's matrimonial affairs, and (2) his way of dealing with his enemies. The learned reader will notice that we might easily have selected extracts from Muslim writers which deal much more fully with each point than those do to whom we appeal. Butwe wished to choose reliable authorities, and to avoid all who to any extent seem to have employed exaggeration in their statements or to have indulged their imagination. Such writers as those of the latter class, unaware how their statements would be regarded by impartial readers, have perhaps said things about Muhammad which represent his character in too unfavourable a light. We have therefore avoided them, and confined ourselves mostly to earlier and more reliable accounts given by Arabic authors. Occasional reference, however, is made to Persian and Turkish works, that it may be evident that the whole Muham- madan world is agreed regarding the facts which we are considering.

full But Muhammad was not limited in his polygamy [1]by even such wide limits as those fixed in this passage, for in Sftrah xxxiii. 49, 50, a special privilege is given to Muhammad in these words : " O Prophet, verily We have made lawful to thee thy wives, whose morn- ing-gifts thou hast brought, and what thy right hand possesses of that which God hath bestowed upon thee, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have emigrated with thee, and [any] believing woman, if she give herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage,—a privilege to thee beyond [the rest of] the Believers (We know what We have enjoined [2] upon them concerning their wives and what their right hand possess), lest there should be a crime upon thee." In his commentary upon this passage, A1 Baiz&wl says[3]: " ' A privilege,' &c.—A notification that it is part of what is granted specially to him in honour of his being a prophet, and an acknowledgement that He deems him worthy of generosity on his account." Among other explanations of the word rendered " a privilege ", Baiz&wi gives " true friendship " and " a special gift ". That we may understand to what extent Muhammad availed himself of this " special privilege ", it should be observed that, at the time of his death, he had nine wives still living, besides at least two concubines, Mary and Rihanah. Ibn Hisham informs us that in all Muhammad married thirteen wives. 'Ayishah was six or seven years of age when the wedding ceremony was performed, and cohabitation began when she was still playing with her dolls at the age of nine or ten years.[1]

With regard to Mary the Copt, sent to Muhammad

by the then governor of Egypt, it is said in Siirah Ixvi. 1,2: " O Prophet, why deemest thou unlawful what God hath made lawful to thee ? Thou seekest the approval of thy wives ; and God is Forgiving, Gracious. God hath' announced to you the annulment of your oaths, and God is your Master, and He is the All- Knowing, the AII-Wise." A1 Baiziwi gives two different explanations of this passage, but the one which is confirmed by other commentators is this : " It^1 is related that Muhammad was alone in company with Mary in 'Ayishah's or Hafsah's turn. Hafsah became aware of that, and therefore scolded him about it. He declared Mary unlawful. Therefore (these verses) descended." The whole story, which is not an edifying one, is told at length in the Rauzatu's Safa 'l and elsewhere. We have chosen a short and simple form of it, so as to avoid details unfit for these pages. But the light which the whole incident throws upon Muhammad's character is noteworthy. It is also worthy of notice as strange that a Revelation from the Holy One should sanction the breach of oaths and such conduct as is mentioned by the commentators.

In reference to Muhammad's marriage with Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, and wife of his own adopted son Zaid ibn Ijirithah, 'we read in Stirah xxxiii. 37, 38 : " And (remember) when thou saidst to him on whom God had conferred favours and on whom thou hadst conferred favours, ' Keep thy wife to thyself, and reverence God,' and thou dost conceal within thyself what God manifests, and thou fearest men, and God is more deserving that thou shouldst fear Him. Accordingly, when Zaid had satisfied a requirement from her, We wedded her to thee, lest there should be upon the Believers a crime in (taking) the wives of their adopted sons, when they have satisfied a requirement from them: and God's command was performed. There was no crime for the Prophet in what God enjoined

1 Baizawi's Commentary, vol. ii, pp. 340, 341.

s Vol", ii, p. 188.

unto him, as God's rule in the case of those who were previously 1 free : and God's command is a fixed decree."

In speaking of the Zainab here referred to, the two Talals say 2 : " The Prophet wedded her to Zaid ; then his glance fell on her after a time, and there-fell into his soul love of her, and into the soul of Zaid abhorrence of her. He said to the Prophet, ' I wish to be separated from her,' Therefore said he, ' Keep thy wife to thyself,' as God Most High said . . . Then Zaid divorced her, and her time was fulfilled." On the words, " And We wedded her to thee," they say: " Accordingly the Prophet went in unto her without permission, and he sated the Muslims with bread and meat."

A1 Baiz&wi says^3: " ' Keep thy wife to thyself,' i. e. Zainab : and that because Muhammad beheld her after he had wedded her to him (Zaid), and she fell into his soul: therefore he said, ' Praise to God who turneth hearts upside down.' And Zainab heard the ascription of praise, and mentioned it to Zaid. He was quick to understand that, and there occurred to his soul an aversion from her society. Therefore he came to the Prophet and said, ' I desire to put away my consort.' (Muhammad) said, ' What is the matter with thee ? Has anything made thee doubtful of her?' (Zaid) said, 'No, by God, I have seen nothing (done) by her but what is good; but truly her dignity is too exalted for me.' Accordingly he said to him, ' Keep thy wife to thyself' .... ' Therefore when Zaid satisfied a requirement from her,' i. e, a need ; since he wearied of her, and he divorced her, and her time was completed . . . ' We wedded her to thee': . . . the meaning is that He commanded him to wed her, or He made her his (Muhammad's) wife without the interposition of a marriage-contract. And what confirms it (this explanation) is that she used to say to the rest of the Prophet's wives, 'Verily God

1 Commentators explain this of former prophets.

s Commentary on ver. 36. 3 Vol. ii, p. 129.

acted the part of a relative in my being given in marriage, and, as for you, your relatives gave you in marriage.' And it is said that Zaid was the go- between in her betrothal, and that was a great trial, and an evident witness to the strength of his faith." From these last few words it is clear that Baizáwi recognized to the full that such conduct on Muhammad's part naturally made not a few people doubtful of the truth of his claims.

The history of Muhammad's relations with Safiyyah, Rlhánah, and some others of his wives and concubines is given in Ibn Hishám's Siratur Rasúl, in Ibn Athlr's History, in the Rauzatus Safa, the Rauzatu I Ahbáb, and in other works written by Muslims themselves.[1] It is not pleasant reading, nor is it very edifying or profitable, except as casting light upon Muhammad's moral character. But we content ourselves with what has been already said regarding this matter.

II. We now turn to the consideration of his manner of dealing with his enemies. Here again we mention only a few incidents out of many.

Ibn Hishám tells us how the Jewish tribe, the Banú Quraizah, surrendered themselves prisoners to Muhammad, and that the latter left the decision as to their fate in the hands of their wounded enemy, Sa'd ibn Mu'ádh. Then the historian continues the tale as follows : " Sa'd^2 said, 'Then regarding them I adjudge that thou slay the men and divide the goods and enslave the children and the women.' Ibn Isháq says, . . . The Prophet of God said to Sa'd, ' Thou hast judged concerning them with the judgement of God from above the seven heavens.' . . . Accordingly the Apostle of God imprisoned them in Medinah, in the house of the daughter of Harith, a woman of the

Banil'n Najj&r. Then the Apostle of God went out to the market-place of Medinah, which is its market-place to-day, and caused to be dug in it trenches. Then he sent for them and beheaded them in those trenches. They were brought forth unto him as sent for, and among them the enemy of God, Hayy bin Akhtab, and Ka'b ibn Asad, the chief of the tribe : and there were 600 or 700 of them. And he who estimates their number highest says that they were between 800 and 900. And while Ka'b ibn Asad was going with them to the Apostle of God, they said to him, ' O Ka'b, what dost thou think that he will do with us ?' He said ..." Do ye not understand ? Do ye not see the person who calls does not desist, and that whoso of you goes with him does not return ? By God, it is a massacre.' And that state of affairs did not come to an end until the Apostle of God had finished with them. Hayy bin Akhtab, the enemy of God, was brought, and on him was a flower-coloured cloak of his . . . When he saw the Apostle of God, he said, ' Indeed, by God, I have not reproached myself for hostility to thee; but whomsoever God forsaketh He forsaketh.' Then he came to the men and said, ' Men, verily there is no harm in God's command, a writing and a fate and a massacre which God has written concerning the Children of Israel.' Then he sat down and was beheaded . . . 'Ayishah says : ' None of their women were slain, except one woman . . . She was with me, talking with me, and laughing outwardly and inwardly while the Apostle of God was killing her men in the market-place, when a crier cried out her name : Where is such and such a woman ? She said, It is I, by God. I said to her, Alas for thee, what is the matter with thee ? She said, I shall be killed. I said, And why ? She said, For the talk which^ I talk. Then she was taken off and beheaded.' 'Ayishah used to say, ' By God, I do not forget my surprise at her, the goodliness of her person and the abundance of her laughter, while she knew that she would be killed.' It was she who had cast the hand-mill upon Khalad ibn Suwaid . . . Ibn Ish&q says : The Apostle of God had commanded the slaughter of the men who had reached the age of puberty . . . Then verily the Apostle of God divided the goods of the Band Quraizah and their wives and their children among the Muslims . . . Then the Apostle of God sent Sa'd bin Zaid the Ansdrl, brother of the Banti 'Abdi'l Ashhal, with some of the captives of the Banti Quraizah to Najad, and there he bought with them horses and arms. And the Apostle of God chose for himself of their women Rihanah, daughter of 'Amr bin Khandfah . . . and she was with the Apostle of God until he died from her, and she was among his concubines. The Apostle of God had proposed to her that he should marry her and cast the veil over her. She said, 'O Apostle of God, on the contrary, leave me among thy slaves, for it is easier for me and for thee.'"

After the battle of Badr, when the Muslims had cast the bodies of their enemies who had fallen in that engagement into an old [1] well, while they were on their way back to Medinah with their prisoners, some of the latter were put to death. Ibn Ishctq's account of the matter runs^2 thus : " When the Apostle of God was at As $ufr£, An Nazr ibnu'l Harith was executed, 'All ibn Abi Tilib executed him, as some of the learned Meccans have informed me . . . Then (Muhammad) went forward till, when he was at 'Arqu'z Zabiyyah, 'Uqbah bin Abl Mu ait was executed . . . When the Apostle of God ordered his execution, 'Uqbah said, 'Who then (will be a guardian) to my little girl, O Muhammad ? ' He said, ' Hell-fire.' "

The story of the murder of Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf is thus related in Ibn H¡sham's Siratur RasUl^3: "Then

Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf returned to Medinah and praised the beauty of the Muslims' wives until he annoyed them. Accordingly the Apostle of God said, . 'Who is for me in the matter of Ibnu'l Ashraf?' Muhammad ibn Maslamah, brother of the Ban ft 'Abdi'l Ashhal, said to him, ' I am for thee in his affair,

0. Apostle of God : I shall kill him.' He said, ' Then do so, if you are able for it.' Accordingly Muhammad ibn Maslamah returned and waited three days, neither eating nor drinking except what his life depended on. He mentioned this to the Apostle of God. Then the latter prayed, and said to him, ' Why hast thou given up food and drink?' He said, 'O Apostle of God,

1. spoke to thee a word, and I know not whether I shall accomplish it for thee or not.' (Muhammad) said, ' Verily the attempt is incumbent on thee"... For his killing there gathered together Muhammad ibn Maslamah and Salkin ibn Salamah ibn Waqsh, and he is Abti Ni'ilah, one of the sons of 'Abdu'l Ashhal, and he was foster-brother of Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf, and' Abb&d ibn Bashr ibn Waqsh, one of the sons of 'Abdul Ashhal, and Harith ibn Aus ibn Mu'&dh, one of the sons of 'Abdu'l Ashhal, and Abu 'Abs ibn Jabar, one of the sons of H&rithah. Before coming to him, they sent Salkdn ibn Salamah Abu Na ilah to the enemy of God, Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf. He came and conversed with him for a time, and they recited poetry to one another, and Abfi Na ilah kept quoting the poetry.1 Then he said, 'Well done, Ibnu'l Ashraf! Verily I have come to thee by reason of a need which I wish to mention to thee: keep it secret for me.' He said, ' I shall do so.' (Abil Na ilah) said, ' The coming of this man 2 has been a calamity to us. Through him have the Arabs . . . blocked the roads against us, so that our families have perished and our souls are emaciated, and we have grown thin and our families have grown thin.' Ka'b said, ' As sure as I am Ibnu'l Ashraf, used I not, by God, to assure thee, O Ibn Salamah,

1 i.e. the verses which Ka'b had composed. 1 Muhammad.

that the matter would turn out just as I said ?' Salk&n said to him, ' I desire that thou shouldest sell us food, and we shall give thee a pledge and make an agreement with thee, and thou wilt be doing good in that matter.' He said, ' Will you pawn me your children ? ' (Abd N&'ilah) said, ' Thou desirest to insult us. Verily there are with me comrades of the same opinion as myself, and I wish to bring them to thee : then thou wilt sell to them, and in that thou wilt be doing a good action; and we shall pawn to thee of our arms that in which there is security.' Salkin wished that (Ibnu'l Ashraf) should not refuse the arms when they brought them. He said, ' Verily there is truly security in arms.' Salk&n returned to his comrades and told them his news, and bade them bring the arms, and to go away and assemble to him again. Accordingly they gathered together at the house of the Apostle of God . . . The Apostle of God walked with them to the Field of the Thorntree. Then he sent them off and said, 4 Depart in God's name. O God, aid them !' Then the Apostle of God returned home. And it was on a fnoonlit night. They advanced till they reached his (Ibnu'l Ashrafs) stronghold. Abti Nd'ilah called out for him. He was newly married. He leaped up in his wrapper. His wife caught hold of its skirt and said, ' Verily thou art a warrior, and warriors do not go down at this hour.' He said, ' Verily it is AbQ Ni'ilah : if he found me asleep he would not waken me.' She said, ' By God, verily in his voice I surely recognize evil.' Ka'b said to her, ' If the lad calls me for a lance-thrust, I shall surely answer, Yes.' He went down and conversed with them for a time, and they talked with him. Then (Abti Nd'ilah) said, ' Art thou, Ibnu'l Ashraf, inclined for us to walk together to the Old Woman's Pass, and there spend the rest of this night of ours in conversation?' (Ibnu'l Ashraf) said, ' If you please.' They went out walking together therefore. They walked along for a time. Then verily Abti N&'ilah thrust his hand amid the locks of hair on his (Ibnu'l Ashrafs) head. Then he smelt his hand and said, ' I never saw it scented and perfumed as it is to-night.' Then he walked along for a time. Then he again acted in the same manner, until Ka'b was lulled into confidence. Then he walked along for a time, then he repeated the same conduct. He seized the locks of hair on his (Ibnu'l Ashrafs) head, then he said,' Smite the enemy of God.' Accordingly they smote him. Their swords came in collision with one another about him and effected nothing. Muhammad ibn Maslamah said, ' Then I recalled to mind my long sword blade, when I saw that our swords effected nothing. I seized it. The enemy of God cried out with such a cry that around us there remained not a stronghold on which a fire was not kindled. Then I stuck it into his abdomen, then I pressed upon it till it reached his navel, and the enemy of God fell. And Harith ibn Aus ibn Mu'adh had been struck and was wounded in his head or in his foot: one of our swords had struck him. We went away until we passed the Banil Umayyah ibn Zaid, then the Banil Quraizah, then Bu 4th, until we approached Harratu'l 'Ariz. And our comrade A1 Harith ibn Aus had delayed us, and loss of blood had exhausted him. For a time we halted on his account: then there came upon us one who was following up our traces. Therefore we carried him (A1 Harith) and brought him to the Apostle of God at the conclusion of the night. He was standing praying. We saluted him, and he came out to us. We informed him of the killing of the enemy of God. He spat upon our comrade's wound, and went back. And we returned to our people.'"

The story of Muhaisah and Huwaisah tells us at whose instigation another murder was committed, and shows us also how some conversions to Islam were brought about at Medinah. Ibn Ish&q is quoted by Ibn^1 Hisham as saying: "The Apostle of God said, 1 Vol. ii, pp. 74 and 75; Ibn Athir, vol. ii, pp. 54, 55.

Y

' Whomsoever among the men of the Jews you overcome, kill him.' Accordingly Muhaisah 1 ibn Mas'tid attacked and killed one of the Jewish merchants, a man who used to deal and do business with them, Ibn Subainah.2 And Huwaisah ibn Mas'tid had not yet, when that occurred, become a Muslim. He was older than Muhaisah. When (Muhaisah) had killed him (Ibn Subainah), Huwaisah began to beat him and to say, O enemy of God, hast thou slain him ? Certainly, by God, it was to increase the fat in thy belly by means of his property.' Muhaisah [in telling the story] said, ' I said, By God, if he who commanded me to kill him bade me kill thee, I should surely behead thee.' He said, By God, it was indeed the beginning of Huwaisah's conversion to Islim. He said, ' God ! If Muhammad bade thee kill me, wouldest thou really kill me ?' (Muhaisah) said ' Yes, by God : had he commanded me to cut off thine head, I should have done it.' (Huwaisah) said, ' By God, this religion has verily attained to something wonderful in thy case.' Accordingly Huwaisah became a Muslim. Ibn Ishiq says: 'A client of the Banti H&rithah told me this tradition on the authority of Muhaisah's daughter [who had heard the story] from her father Muhaisah.'"

A slightly different account of Huwaisah's conversion to Islclm is given by Ibn Hishim himself^3 from another source. But it varies very little from this, and represents (as this account does) his conversion as due to terror at another murder committed by Muhaisah, also by Muhammad's command.

Ibn Ish&q's^4 account of the murder of Sal&m ibn Abi'l Huqaiq is another instance of the kind of deed which Muhammad sanctioned. He tells us that there

1 According to the margin of Ibn Hisham, this name may also be pronounced Muhayyissah.

' Another reading, according to Ibn Hisham, is Ibn Shunainah.

' Vol. ii, p. 75.

4 Siratu'r RasUl, vol. ii, pp. 162, 163: compare Ibn Athir, vol. ii, PP- 55, 56 ; Rauzalus Sa/d, vol. ii, pp. 102, 103 ; Mishkat, pp. 523, 524. The murdered man is also known as Abfi Rafi'.

was rivalry between the two tribes of the Ans&rs, Aus and Khazraj, each being resolved that the other should not excel it in zeal for Islim and Muhammad. Accordingly, he says, " When the Aus had destroyed Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf in his enmity towards the Apostle of God, the Khazraj said, ' By God, they shall never excel us in this.' Accordingly they consulted one another as to what man was in hostility to the Apostle of God, like Ibnu'l Ashraf: and they remembered Ibn Abl'l Huqaiq, and he was at Khaibar. Therefore they asked permission of the Apostle of God to slay him, and he gave them leave. Accordingly five men of the Khazraj, of the Banil Salmah, five persons, set out unto him, 'Abdu'll&h ibn 'Utaik and Mas'Gd ibn San&n and 'Abdullah ibn Unais and Abft Qatddatu'l liarith ibn Rab'l and Khaz&'i ibn Aswad, one of their confederates, who had embraced Isl&m. Accordingly they set out. And the Apostle of God placed in command of them 'Abdullah ibn 'Utaik, and forbade them to kill a child or a woman. They went forward until they came to Khaibar. They came during the night to the village of Ibn Abi'l Huqaiq. They did not visit a house in the village without fastening it upon its inmates. And (Ibn Abi'l Huqaiq) was in an upper room of his, to which there was a staircase. Accordingly they ascended by it until they stood at his door. They asked permission to come in to him. His wife came out to them. She said, 'Who are you ?' They said, ' Men of the Arabs : we are seeking for corn.' She said, ' There is your friend, go in to him.' When they went in to him, we locked the room upon ourselves and upon her,1 through fear lest, if there should be a combat over him, she should intervene between us and him. Therefore his wife cried out and screamed at us. We came unexpectedly upon him with our swords: (he was in his bed): and, by God, in the blackness of the night nothing directed us to him except his pallor, [which looked] as if he had been 1 In such a way as to shut her out.

v 2

Egyptian linen stretched out. And when his wife cri^d out at us, the man^1 among us began to raise his sword against her. Then he remembered the prohibition of the Prophet of God. Therefore his hand dropped. If that had not been so, surely we had been quit of her in the night. Accordingly, when we struck him with our swords, 'Abdullah ibn Unais pressed upon him with his sword in his belly till he pierced him through . . . And we went out. And 'Abdu'll&h ibn 'Utaik was a man of bad sight, and he fell from the staircase, and his hand^2 was sprained severely: and in what Ibn Hish&m says it is said his foot. And we carried him till we came to an aqueduct of their springs, and into it we enter. And they lit fires and ran in every direction seeking for us, until, when they lost hope, they returned to their friend. And they encircled him while he died among them. . . . We carried our comrade and came to the Apostle of God and informed him of the killing of the enemy of God. And in his presence we differed among ourselves about his killing, each of us laying claim to it. Therefore the Apostle of God said, ' Bring your swords.' We brought them to him. He looked at them and said, 'Truly the sword of this 'Abdu'llih ibn Unais has killed him : on it I see the trace of food'."

In this narrative we read that Muhammad forbade that any woman should be murdered on that particular occasion. But that this was not always the case is clear^3 from the story of 'Asmas fate (<1,^). Of her murder and of that of a very old man the following account is given by Ibn Ishaq. Abu 'Afak, a man of about 100 years of age, had written some verses against Muhammad. "Accordingly," says^4 Ibn Ishaq,

1 [Doubtless the narrator.]

' Compare the account we have quoted above, p. 318.

' See Ibn Hisham's Siratur Rasul, vol. ii, p. 218, where we read that Muhammad ordered two slave girls to be killed at Mecca for lampooning him. One escaped, but a third, Sarah, was murdered later.

* Siratur RasM, vol. iii, p. 90.

' the Apostle of God said, ' Who is for me in the matter of this vile fellow ?' Therefore Salim ibn 'Umair, brother of the Banti 'Amr bin cAuf, who was one of the Weepers, went forth and slew him."

'Asmd', daughter of Marwan, was a poetess who also attacked Muhammad in her verses. Of her fate Ibn Ishaq^1 writes thus : " When Abd 'Afak was slain, she pretended [to embrace Islim]. She was under [i.e. married to] a man of the Band Khatamah who was called Yazid bin Zaid. . . . The Apostle of God said, ' Shall I not exact satisfaction for myself from the daughter of Marwdn?' 'Umair ibn 'Udai the Khatami heard that from the speech of the Apostle of God, being near him. Accordingly, when that night drew on, he went by night against her in her house and killed her. Then in the morning he was with the Apostle of God, and said to him, ' O Apostle of God, verily I have killed her.' Then (Muhammad) said, 'Thou hast helped God and His Apostle, O 'Umair.' ('Umair) said, ' Will there be any [danger] to me on her account, O Apostle of God ?' He said,' Two goats will not butt one another about her.' Accordingly 'Umair returned to his people. On that day the Banil Khatamah were much disturbed about the daughter of Marwan. On that day she had as sons five men. When 'Umair bin 'Udai came to them from the Apostle of God, he said, ' O Banit Khatamah, it was I who slew the daughter of Marw&n : do you then all together avenge yourselves on me.' . . . On that day for the first time was Islim honoured in the abodes of the Banil Khatamah : for whoever among them had [up to that time] become a Muslim used to conceal his belief in Islam. And the first of the Banu Khatamah to accept Isl&m was 'Umair ibn 'Udai. . . . And some men of the Band Khatamah became Muslims on the day when the daughter of Marwdn was slain, when they saw the honour shown to Islam."

Another account tells us more particulars about this 1 Siratur Rasul, vol. in, pp. 90, 91.

murder. It is said by some that 'Umair was blind, and that he had formerly been 'Asmi's husband. He seems to have crept at night into the room where 'Asmi slept, with an infant at her breast. Gently removing the child, he drove his sword into her body, piercing her through and through. When Muhammad heard of the murder next day, he pointed 'Umair out to the people in the Mosque as one that had rendered a service to God and to His Apostle.

Shortly before the murder of Abd'l Huqaiq we read how the aged Umm Kirfe was killed by Zaid's command. Her legs were tied to camels, and these were driven in different directions until the unfortunate old woman was torn in pieces. Muhammad greeted Zaid warmly when he returned from this expedition, and uttered no reproaches for such barbarity.

Ibn Hish&m^1 tells us that Muhammad sent 'Amr ibn Umayyah and Jabber ibn $akhar from Medinah to Mecca for the purpose of murdering Abil Sufy&n ibn Harb. They did not succeed in their attempt, being detected and obliged to flee for their lives. But this biographer of Muhammad openly admits Muhammad's complicity in the plot. His account is too long to quote, but it tells of several cowardly murders which the two Muslim emissaries committed when endeavouring to escape from their pursuers.

As every man of learning is well aware, it would be easy to quote from Muslim writers of recognized authority many more^2 examples of Muhammad's conduct towards his enemies. But doubtless our honoured readers will be well content with what has now been pointed out on this^3 subject. We do not make any comment on these deeds of his, nor do we venture to express any opinion regarding them. But we should like to ask our Muslim friends to consider seriously what answer they would give to the following question :

1 Vol. iii, pp. 89, 90; Ibn Athir, vol. ii, pp. 63, 64.

* For example, the murder of Mukhairiq; Ibn Hisham, vol. ii, p. 87.

' See A1 Kindi's remarks; Risdlah, pp. 47, 48.

If Muhammad had made no claim to be a prophet, if he had been an idolater like the Arabs in the " Days of Ignorance ", if he had never learnt the wiil of God Most High, the Merciful, the Gracious, the Holy, but had been a great and valiant warrior only, like Timilr-i Lang (Tamerlane), intent only on making himself powerful and on indulging his tastes for perfumes and women; then, in what respect—except in religious forms and ceremonies and the dictation of the Qur'dn to his amanuenses—would his conduct have differed from what it actually was, in spite of his claim to be the Apostle of God ? In other words, In what respect was his conduct, in moral matters, better than that of such conquerors as aim only at success in this world and enjoyment of sensual pleasures ? Does Muhammad's conduct in such matters as those which we have been considering, in chastity, forgiveness of injuries, meekness, mercifulness, goodness, form any genuine proof that he was Divinely commissioned as the Seal of the Prophets, God's last and most perfect messenger to His creatures ? Or is it necessary to believe his claim, in spite of his conduct after this claim was first made ?

III. As to the manner in which Inspiration is said to have come to Muhammad, we have certain statements made by leading Muslim historians and in the Traditions which in substance are held reliable by both Sunnis and Shl'ites. Ibn IsHiq, Ibn HishcLm, Ibn Athir, Husain ibn Muhammad (in his KhcLmis), the Turkish writer 'All Halabi, and others, give us many details about this matter. The most valuable collection of Traditions upon the point is found in the Mish- kdtul Masdbth (Kit&bu'l Fitan : Bibu'l Buth wa Bad&'il Wahy), pp. 513-516.

We are told that he was raised up as an Apostle when forty years of age, and that the call first came when he was in retirement with Khadijah in a cave in Mount Hiri near Mecca. Muhammad thought that the angel Gabriel came to him and bade him recite in the name of his Lord. Muhammad returned in "trepidation of heart" (oy ^ >), came in where Khadijah was, and cried out to her and her attendants, " Wrap me up, wrap me up." They covered him up with wrappings until he recovered. He must have fallen into either a swoon or a fit of some kind, for they sprinkled him with water to bring him to himself.[1] In order to be certain thac the spirit whom Muhammad assured her he saw in the apartment was not Satan, Khadijah used a test which the biographers of Muhammad tell us about. As a result of this, she was convinced. But Muhammad himself had many doubts, and was much distressed. Of his own state of mind about that time he says, according to tradition, " I was 2 minded to throw myself from a cliff." After this came an interval, about the length of which the Traditions differ. Az Zuhrl says : " The Inspiration^3 ceased from the Apostle of God for a space: therefore he grieved very much, and began to go early in the morning to the tops of the mountains, that he might fall from them. And whenever he reached a mountain peak, Gabriel appeared to him." A1 Bukhiri's account is very similar: " The^4 prophet often sorrowed so much in the morning that he might fall down from the tops of the mountain peaks : therefore, whenever he reached the summit of a mountain that he might cast himself down from it, Gabriel appeared to him."

In later times, too, whenever he fell into a state similar to that in which he thought that inspiration had first come to him, certain bodily symptoms made those near him expect to hear from him some new verses of the Qur'in. 'Ayishah^5 tells us that, when Muhammad was asked how inspiration came to him, he said: " Sometimes there comes to me as it were the ringing of a bell, and it is very violent upon me. It leaves me, and I recollect what it said. And sometimes the angel appears to me like a man and converses with me, and I remember what he says." 'Ayishah herself adds : " Indeed I have seen him when the inspiration descends upon him on a very cold day and departs from him : and verily his forehead streams with perspiration." Muslim 1 relates the following Tradition : " Whenever Inspiration was sent down upon him, the Prophet grew troubled thereat, and his countenance changed."

Ibn Ishaq says^2 that, before the Revelation first began to descend upon him, Muhammad's friends feared that he was suffering from the evil eye : and that, when it came upon him, almost the same illness attacked him again. What this particular malady was we can perhaps infer from the statements of the Traditionists. 'All Halabl, in his Turkish work entitled Insanu ¿'Uyun, informs us that many people declared that Aminah, Muhammad's mother, used a spell in order to recover him from the influence of the evil eye. On the authority of 'Amr ibn Sharhabil it is stated that Muhammad said to Khadijah, " When I was alone I heard a cry : ' O Muhammad, O Muhammad.'" In tradition (¿jI^) it is stated that he said, " I fear lest I should become a magician, lest one should proclaim me a follower of the Jinn" ; and again : " I fear lest there should be madness" {or demoniac possession, ^jji».) " in me". After an accession of shivering and shutting his eyes, there used to come over him what resembled a swoon, his face would foam, and he would roar like a young camel. Abtl Hurairah says: "As for the Apostle of God, when inspiration descended on him, no one could raise his glance to him until the inspiration came to an end." In Tradition it is stated that " He was troubled thereat, and his face foamed, and he closed his eyes, and perchance roared like the

1 Mishkdt, p. 514.

[' The original Arabic of the quotations in this paragraph will be found in the Arabic edition of the (unrevised) Mizdnul Haqq, printed by Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1874, p. 221.] roaring of the young camel." 'Umar ibnu'l Khattâb says : " When inspiration descended on the Apostle of God, there used to be heard near his face as it were the buzzing^1 of bees."

Somewhat similarly we read in the Turkish work, Mirât i Kéiinât-. "When^2 inspiration came with a message of threatening and warning, it descended with a terrible sound like that of a bell. . . . On the authority of Abû Hurairah, too, it is related that, when inspiration descended on the Apostle, they used to bathe his sacred head with frennâ, because of the headache that used to come on."

In the Turkish Insânul 'Uyûn of *Ali Halabl we read : " Zaid ibn Thâbit relates : ' When inspiration descended on the Prophet, he became very heavy. Once his leg fell upon mine, and, by God, there is no such heavy leg as was that of the Apostle of God. Sometimes a revelation would come to him when he was on his camel. Then it shuddered as if it would collapse, and it usually knelt down. ... As often as the Prophet received inspiration, it seemed as if his soul were being taken from him, for he had always a kind of swoon and looked like one intoxicated."

These strange phenomena did not begin in Muhammad's case only just before he claimed to be a Prophet. Of his childhood we know only a few facts, but one of them is that, when he was quite a young boy, living in the desert with his foster-parents, something similar occurred. The story is differently told by different authorities, but Muslim's account is this, based on a Tradition handed down from Anas: "As^3 for the Apostle of God, Gabriel came to him while he was playing with the (other) lads. He took him and threw (îi^lÎ) him on the ground and split his heart. Then he took out of it a drop of clotted blood, and said, ' This is Satan's portion of thee.' Then he washed it [the heart] in a basin of gold, in Zamzam-water, then

1 Quoted also in Mirât i Kdindt, vol. i, p. 411. 8 Hid.

' Mishkdt, p. 516.

he repaired it, and restored it to its place. And the lads came running to his mother—i. e. to his foster- mother 1—and said : ' Verily Muhammad has been killed.' They therefore went to meet him, and he had changed colour." Anas said: " I used to see the mark of the needle on his chest." The marginal note to this Tradition in the Mishkat calls attention to the fact that Muhammad's chest was opened on at least two other occasions,—during his Mi raj, and when Gabriel visited him while residing in the cave at Hir£. Leaving aside the reference to the Mi'raj, we see that the phenomenon which occurred in his childhood bore a great resemblance to that which often attended what was called in his later life the " descent of inspiration (^j^Jl)" upon Muhammad.

In the Stratu'r Rasdl^2 of Ibn Hish&m we are told that Halimah's husband fancied that something very serious was coming upon young Muhammad, and said to her : " Halimah, I fear that this lad has become afflicted li); therefore unite him with his people ere that become manifest in him." When Halimah therefore gave him back to his mother Aminah, the latter was surprised and said, " Dost thou then fear that Satan has come upon him ?" His foster-mother admitted that she did.

The question arises: How can it be proved that the phenomena which Tradition mentions really denoted the visits of Gabriel to Muhammad and the descent of Inspiration upon him ? Historians inform us that the great Roman general Julius Caesar, the Emperor Peter the Great of Russia, and the first Emperor of the French, Napoleon Bonaparte, besides other great men, especially great warriors, exhibited the same symptoms. But they were not prophets or apostles of God. Those who were in attendance upon these men thought that they were afflicted with some terrible disease.

1 Halimah.

Some of our Muslim readers have doubtless studied

* Vol. i, p. 56.

the science of Medicine. Others have able physicians among their friends. Let these therefore inquire whether there is a disease, often beginning in early youth or childhood, among the symptoms of which are some or all of the following: The patient utters a strange, inarticulate cry, falls (' suddenly to the ground, becomes pale, then sometimes turns purple, the body trembles violently, the mouth foams, the eyes are shut, and the sick person seems on the point of death ; he often sees flashes of light and bright colours, hears a ringing in his ears, and frequently suffers after the attack from a most violent headache. He often has a distinct warning before a fit comes on.

It has been asserted that there is such a disease, and that it is not very rare. The author of these pages is not a physician, for which cause—among others—he does not venture to offer an opinion upon the subject.

We must now leave it to our readers to consider, and by God's guidance to decide, whether the facts which we have learnt about Muhammad's conduct and character are such as to lead to the conclusion that he was really and in very truth a Prophet of God. Let it never be forgotten that the statements about him which we have quoted are not those of his enemies, but those made by his friends, his relatives, and those who most firmly believed in his claim to be the Seal of the Prophets, the Apostle of God.

« o „

[' Translators into Arabic should use this word, because c^« means Epilepsy.]

CHAPTER VII

AN INQUIRY INTO THE MANNER IN WHICH ISLAM AT FIRST SPREAD IN ARABIA ITSELF AND IN THE NEIGHBOURING LANDS

From Ibn Hishim[1] and other biographers of Muhammad we learn that, when he arose as a Prophet in Mecca in his fortieth year, he at first adopted gentle means in order to spread his religion. He called it " the Religion of Abraham ", he identified his teaching with that of Zaid the Hanif, and he employed personal influence, persuasion, and argument in order to induce men to abandon idolatry and to return to the worship of God Most High (¿¿I*; ¿il). His wife Khadijah was perhaps his first convert; the other seven who soon joined him were his slave Zaid^2 ibn Hirithah, Abil Bakr, 'Uthmin ibn 'Uffin, Zubair ibnu'l 'Awam, 'Abdu'r Rahm&n ibn 'Auf, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqls, and Talhah. Ibn Ish&q and Ibn Hishdm mention the names of a number of other early converts, including even the infant 'Ayishah. These were privately won over to Islam during the first three years of Muhammad's teaching. He then began to preach in public, under the protection of his uncle Abd T&lib, who was not then converted. It is disputed whether he ever became a Muslim. Only sixteen converts took part in the first Hijrah to Abyssinia in the fifth year^3 of Muhammad's mission; but from time to time others followed them to the court of the Najashi, so that they finally amounted to eighty-three men, besides some women[1] and children. There is no proof that Muslim historians are right in saying that the Najâshi himself became a Muslim, for Abyssinia is still a professedly Christian country. A little later we find some forty Muslims,2 men and women, in Mecca. We are told that some twenty Christians from Najrân heard the Qur'ân read in the Ka'bah and believed.3 But this story can scarcely be true ; for, in the first place, Christians would hardly have entered the Ka'bah, then a heathen temple full of idols ; and, in the second, they certainly did not find Muhammad described in their Book, as Ibn Hishâm says.

At a conference with the chiefs of the Quraish, Muhammad endeavoured to win them to his side by assuring them that they would gain power and influence over both Arabia and Persia by accepting belief in God's Unity and by rejecting all other objects^4 of worship. Once before, after the departure of many of his followers to Abyssinia, he had made an effort for the same purpose by^6 speaking thus : " Have ye not then seen Allât and Al-'Uzzâ' and Manât, the other, the third ? These are the exalted Swans, and verily their intercession may indeed be^8 hoped for." The Quraish who were then in the Ka'bah thereupon joined with him in worship, and the news spread to the exiles in Abyssinia that the Meccans had all become Muslims. Most of them returned to find the report false, for Muhammad had soon changed the last part of the above quotation into the very different words which are now found in Sûratu'n Najm (Sûrah liii), vers. 21, 22, 23.

Some men of the tribes of Aus and Khazraj dwelling at Yathrib, which is now called Medinah, visited Mecca, and there heard Muhammad preach. One of them was converted, but died soon after his return home. Yet the teaching spread there slowly. Six men then came to Muhammad and embraced[1] Islim. Soon "there was no house amid the houses of the Ans&r in which there was no mention of^2 Muhammad'1. At the first Agreement at A1 'Aqabah, twelve people from Medinah invited Muhammad to go there, and promised him their support. This Agreement bound these converts not to associate anything with God, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to murder their children, not to slander, and not to rebel against Muhammad in what was seemly. Muhammad in return promised them Paradise, if they kept their^3 covenant with him. In after times this was called the " Women's Agreement", because no fighting was involved in it. Mus'ab ibn 'Umair was sent to Medinah with the converts in order to teach them the rules of worship. He soon made several more converts, including two powerful chiefs, Sa'd ibn Mu'&dh and Usaid ibn Huzair. Next year Mus'ab returned to Mecca with seventy-three Muslim men and two Muslim women^4 from Medinah. In the second Agreement at 'Aqabah, they offered to draw their swords to help Muhammad to exalt I slim and overthrow Polytheism. At first he said that he had not been so commissioned.5 But he soon declared that God permitted^6 war for the faith, and promised Paradise^7 to the faithful. Soon after this the Hijrah took place. Nearly all the Meccan Muslims went to Medinah. Muhammad, Abti Bakr, and 'All^8 remained in Mecca for a short time, and then escaped with some danger. We do not know how many Muslims left their native city for their faith. About a year and a half later eighty-three of the Muhajirtin fought at Badr, and hence perhaps somewhat more than 100 in all were the converts whom in thirteen years' peaceful teaching and preaching Muhammad had succeeded in winning at Mecca. We must remember, too, that a few had died. Those at Medinah numbered perhaps somewhat fewer, and had been won by more worldly motives.

In his speech in the Mosque at Medinah soon after Muhammad's death, Abil Bakr admitted the comparative failure of all Muhammad's efforts at Mecca to spread Islim by gentle means. He said 1: " Muhammad having for more than ten years remained among his own people, and having invited them to Islim, that community did not believe, except a few. Finally, by the will of God Most High, he cast upon your dwellings the ray of his notice, and made your city the abode of his exile and the refuge of the Migration."

Muhammad had now for thirteen years tried to spread his religion by the peaceful means by which alone any true Prophet had ever endeavoured to turn men to God. Probably he himself agreed with Abfl Bakr in thinking that he had failed. He had been driven from his native city with his followers, and they were now exiles among men of tribes often hostile to the Quraish. He had retained in his religion many ancient Arabian practices,—for instance, the habit of Tawwdf or circling round the Ka'bah, the Hajj or Pilgrimage, and reverence for the Black Stone. It was impossible for himself and his followers to perform these duties unless he went to 8 war.- Nor could he otherwise satisfy the Ansirs, whom he had already told that God had sanctioned fighting for the Faith. Hence he now became " the Prophet with the Sword ", and henceforth I slim had its one and only trenchant proof in that weapon.

If we may judge by Muhammad's own conduct and that of his followers after this, they seem to have imagined that the moral rules made and accepted at 'Aqabah were now no longer binding upon them. All that God now required of them was to " fight in the way of God", with sword and spear, with bow and

1 Jfauza/u's Safd, vol. ii, p. 221.

a Hence the teaching in Sfirahs xxii. 40, 41; ii. 212, 214.

arrow, with dagger and the assassin's knife. Hence it is that we read of such conduct as that of Abti Nd'ilah and Muhaisah and other Muslims already mentioned. In reference to chastity, it is unnecessary to refer to Muhammad's own conduct. Let us consider that of 'Abdu r Rahman, who left children by sixteen wives, besides concubines. When this man first came to Medinah, one of the Ans&rs, Sa'd by name, offered to divorce on his behalf whichever of his own two wives his guest preferred. 'Abdu'r Rahm&n accepted the offer. Muhammad expressed no condemnation of this marriage, which, of course, by God's Law was adultery.[1]Again, the conduct of Khalid ibn Walid, especially in his Syrian [2] campaign, was notorious at the time, but in Isl&m there was nothing to hinder or to discountenance it. Nay, rather the Qur'&n directly encouraged polygamy and servile concubinage, as did Muhammad's own example and the promise of sensual delights as a reward in Paradise for those who believed in Muhammad, and especially for those who " fought in the way of God". Such of them as died in battle were entitled " martyrs" and believed to be rewarded as such, and especially welcomed by the Houris (HUr) in Paradise, even if they had been slain in a plundering expedition in which they sought to take other

men's property by force.

As soon as Muhammad sanctioned and encouraged war and plunder, the Arabs flocked to his standard. In a few months after his arrival at Medinah, as we learn from Ibn Hisham, " there [3] was not a household in Medinah but believed, except certain of the tribe of Aus." An agreement was drawn up between the Muhajirun and the Ansars, and a mosque was built.

We have seen how few converts were won to Muhammad during the thirteen years before the Hijrah.

On the other hand, they were now won so rapidly that, when Muhammad advanced to attack Mecca in the eighth year after the Hijrah, he had an 1 army of 10,000 Muslims with him. In a. h. 9, on the expedition to TabAk, he had 30,000 men. A little later, the K&tibu'I W&qidl says of those sent by Abft Bakr on the Jih&d to conquer Syria that they were so numerous that they " filled^2 the land". There can be no doubt that most of these men were animated more by their desire for the good things of this world than even for the sensual delights of the Muslim Paradise. This we shall see was the opinion of the Khalifah A1 Ma'mtin, among others. But some of those who professed belief in I slim, even in those early days, did so through compulsion and for the sake of saving their lives. For instance, many of the Jews living in or near Medinah became converted, but Ibn Ishiq^3 says that they " assumed the outward appearance of having accepted Isl&m, and they accepted it as a protection against slaughter". He mentions the names of a number of such * converts. That they had good reason to fear for their lives is proved by the fate of their brethren, the Banti Nadhlr, the Banii Qainuqi', and the Band Quraizah.

But it was not only Jews who had to choose between Isl&m and a violent death. After the conquest of Mecca in a. h. 8, many of the Quraish admitted that Muhammad's arms had prevailed, and as a matter of course became Muslims.5 Of AbQ Sufyan's conversion we are given the following account.6 When he was taken prisoner, before the capture of the city, and brought into Muhammad's presence, the latter asked

1 Ibn Athir, vol. ii, p. 93.

1 Futtihiish Shdm, vol. i, p. 6 : kJ<>^\ jJ j^JI J* - v (Edition published at Safdari Press, Bombay, a.h. 1298.)

' Siralu'r RasUl, vol. i, p. 183: ^ 111 ^JuJlj lJy4ki

J^JiT

4 Vol. i, p. 188. * Siralu'r Rasul, vol. ii, p. 211.

* Op. cii., vol. ii, p. 215, and Ibn Athir, vol. ii, p. 93.

him whether he did not know that there was no god but God. This he admitted. He was then asked whether he acknowledged Muhammad to be God's Prophet. Abd Sufyin very courteously explained that up to that time he was still in some doubt on that point. A1 'Abbds thereupon said to him, " Woe to thee! Become a Muslim, and testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is God's Apostle, before thy head is cut off." Convinced by this forcible and logical argument, Abft Sufydn at once repeated the Kalimah, and became a Muslim. With him and by the same argument were converted his two companions in misfortune, Hakim ibn Kharrim and Budail ibn Warqi.

Ibn Athir^1 tells us that a man named Bujair, who had spoken somewhat disrespectfully of Muhammad, nevertheless went to him and professed I slim. This man's brother, Ka'b ibn J ubair, hearing of this, wrote some verses against Muhammad. The latter thereupon became angry, and declared that Ka'b's blood might be shed with impunity. Bujair then wrote to his brother and told him to hasten and become a Muslim, and so anticipate Muhammad's determination to kill him. Ka'b immediately took this advice, and thereby saved his life.

Still lower inducements influenced many to profess faith in Muhammad. A1 Waqidi^2 shows what one of these was in the following story: "The Apostle of God said, that he might incite the men and endear to them the Jihid and encourage them to it: 'Vie with me in speed to Syria ; perchance you may get A1 Asfar's daughters.' As they thought, A1 Asfar had been one of these blacks. ... He had perished in Byzantine territory, and had married of their women, and there were born to him men and women, the likeness of whom was never seen, but they became a proverb for their beauty. And when the Apostle of God mentioned to

1. Vol. ii, pp. 104, 105.

2. Al Maghazi, p. 144 : referring to the Expedition to Tabftk.

Z 2

them A1 Asfar's daughters, Jidd ibn Qais, one of the An§&rs, stood up and said, ' O Apostle of God, thou knowest the Ans&rs, and my admiration for women. And I am afraid, if I make a raid with thee and see the daughters of A1 Asfar, I shall be led astray by them. Therefore leave me, and do not lead me astray.'" It is in complete accordance with Muhammad's conduct on this occasion that 'Abdu'U&h A1 H&shiml in A1 Ma'mtin's reign, in his letter to A1 Kindl the Christian, in urging him to embrace Isl&m, uses no spiritual inducement, but speaks of the sensual delights of Paradise and all the good things here and hereafter offered by Isldm, including permission to have four wives at a time as well as slave-girls, and entreats his Christian friend on this account to enter " this^1 abiding, easy religion ".

Another inducement to become Muslims was afforded by the prospect of plunder. That those who for this object joined Muhammad's banner were not disappointed is well known, but we give a few examples. 'Abd Rahmin, whom we have already mentioned as one of the Muhdjirtin, came to Medinah in great poverty. When he died, he left such a heap of gold that it was cut up with axes until people's hands bled with hacking at it. Besides this, he left i ,000 camels, large herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. Again, after the battle of Nah&vand, the amount of booty taken by the Arabs was so enormous that, when the consecrated fifth had been removed, what remained gave every horseman of the Muslim army 6,000 darhams 2 and every foot- soldier 2,000.

A very great deal of Muhammad's time between the Hijrah and his death was spent in planning and in taking part in expeditions for the purpose of enriching his supporters by plunder. A1 Wdqidi says that Muhammad was present in nineteen out of twenty-six or twenty-seven of these raids (cyl^i). Ibn Athir^3 speaks

1 J4UI pliJI ^Dl V±it, Risalatu 'Abdi'llah, &c., pp. 12-22, printed

at London, a.d. 1880.

1 Rauza/u's ?afd, vol. ii, p. 253. 5 Ibn Athir, vol. ii, p. 116.

of thirty-jive such expeditions, others count as many as forty-eight. Ibn Hishim is more probably correct in saying that they were [1] twenty-seven altogether. A1 Kindl states that Muhammad himself^1 fought in nine such expeditions, but was present in twenty-six, besides some sorties by night. We need make no comment upon this part of Muhammad's conduct, but content ourselves with referring to what A1 Kindl^3 says on the subject.

With reference to the motives which led to the spread of Islim at this period and for long after, it suffices for us to quote the following speech by the Khalifah A1 Ma'mtin. He said^4 on one occasion: " Verily, I know for certain that So-and-so and So-and- so .. . assume the outward mask of I slim, while they are devoid of a trace of it. And they look at me, and I know that their inward parts are indeed contrary to what they show forth outwardly. . . . They are a people who enter I slim, not through inclination towards this religion of ours; but, on the contrary, they seek nearness to us and honour through the sovereignty of our realm. They have no insight into and no inclination for the correctness of that into which they have entered. And verily I know that their story is as the tale which the common people have made proverbial, that, as for the Jew, verily his Judaism is correct, and he keeps the enactments of the Taurit and then professes Islim. And what is the story of these men in their being Magians and their professing to be Muslims but like the story of the Jew? And verily I indeed know that So-and-so and So-and-so . . . were Christians, and they became Muslims against their will: and they are not Muslims, nor are they Christians, but they are a mixture of both. What then is my device, and how shall I act ? The curse of God be upon them all!. .. But I have a pattern in the

Apostle of God, and consolation in him. Many indeed of his Companions, and those most familiar with him and nearest to him in descent, used to pretend that they were his Followers and his Helpers, and he knew that they were hypocrites and the opposite of what they pretended to him to be. And that was evident to him. And they did not cease to desire for him misfortunes, and to wish evil to him, and to seek for him occasions of stumbling, and to aid the Polytheists against him.. . . Then, after his death, they all apostatized ; and there remained not one of them who thought that in him there was right guidance, but turned back and apostatized, and longed for the overthrow of this business" (Isl&m) " and its destruction, openly and inwardly and manifestly and secretly, until God aided it and patched up their divisions and cast into the hearts of some of them longing for the Khalifate and love of the world."

The revolt of the tribes after Muhammad's death is called by Muslim historians an apostasy. It was not therefore a mere refusal to pay the zakat, though that was a serious offence against Islam and the injunctions of the religious law of the Qur'&n. Ibn Athir, for instance, says: "The^1 Arabs apostatized ^Xt,*)» whether common or noble, of every tribe, and hypocrisy became manifest and rejoiced. The Jews and the Christians refused (submission), and the Muslims remained like sheep in the rainy night because of the loss of their Prophet and their small numbers and the multitude of their enemies." The circumstances were so desperate that Abil Bakr was repeatedly urged to detain the army then assembled near Medinah under Usamah ibn Zaid for the conquest of Syria. But he refused to disobey Muhammad's last wish by doing so. Ab£l Bakr subdued the tribes, and brought them back to Islam " by 2 promises and threats", and still more by

1. Ibn Athir, vol. ii, p. 127: compare A1 Kindi, pp. 65, 66, and Rauzatus Sa/a, vol. ii, pp. 224-231.

2. Rauzalu's Safd, vol. ii, p. 231.

force of arms. This is admitted by As Suydti, among others, who says : " When^1 the Arabs apostatized, Aba Bakr and his companions waged a Jihdd against them, until he brought them back to Isl&m."

There now began the spread of Isldm beyond the borders of Arabia. We must inquire how this took place, by whose command, what methods were employed to convince men that Muhammad was the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets, in what spirit the conversion of the world was undertaken, and by what arguments the majority of the people of Syria, Egypt, and Persia were led to embrace the new Religion so effectively brought to their notice.

In despatching the army to Syria after Muhammad's death, AbA Bakr said : " Know^2 that the Apostle of God had resolved to send his force to Syria : and God took him to Himself. . . . And I verily purpose to direct the faces of the heroes of the Muslims towards Syria, . . . for the Apostle of God announced that to me before his death, and said, ' The Earth has been Divinely decreed to me, therefore have I seen its eastern and its western parts : and what of it has been Divinely decreed to me shall come into the possession of my people.'" Abti Bakr also wrote a letter and sent a copy of it to Yaman and Mecca, urging the people to undertake this Jihad\ This latter title is repeatedly given to the war by the Kitibu'l Waqidi, and the same term is used of it in 'Umar's letter to Ibn 'Ubaidah, quoted in that author's FutHhtCl 'Ajam, p. 2.

To the army starting for Syria under the command of Yazid ibn Abt Sufy&n, AbG Bakr gave the commission 3 mentioned in Chapter 11 of the Third Part of

Tdrikhu'l Khulafd, p. 44, Muhammadi Press, Lahore, a.h. 1304. A fuller account is given in the same work, pp. 51, 52.

* KStibu'l Waqidi, Futuhu'sh Shdm, vol. i, p. 3 : printed at Safdari Press, Bombay, a.h. 1298.

' Ibid., p. 5, of the edition printed at Kanpur in a.h. 1287; see also As Suyfiti, Tdrikhu'l Khulafd, p. 66.

our present Treatise. It agrees very closely with what Muhammad had said when sending Zaid ibn H&rithah, his adopted son, on a similar expedition before the march to Tabftk :." Slay 1 your enemies and God's enemies that are in Syria. There you will find a class of men who live retired in cells. Give them no trouble. And slay not woman and boy and suckling; cut not down the date-palms and trees, nor destroy the houses." But this must not be taken to indicate mercy to the women, for they were often reserved for a fate far worse than death. We have already seen that Muhammad had caused women who had offended him to be put to death in both Medinah and Mecca. Nor were the Muslims more merciful to women after his death. As Suyfttl tells 2 us of the treatment suffered by two women of the Arabs, one of whom had abused Muhammad and the other had lampooned the Muslims. In each case the woman's hand was cut off and one of her front teeth knocked out. Abti Bakr, hearing of this, wrote to say that, if he had been consulted, he would have ordered the former of the two to be put to death.

The spirit in which the conversion of the neighbouring countries was undertaken is clearly shown in the following lines, ascribed to 'Ali ibn Abi Tilib :—

" Our * flowers are the sword and the dagger: ..

Narcissus and myrtle are nought.'

Our drink is the blood of our foeman;

Our goblet his skull, when we've fought."

This is in accord with the teaching of the Qur'in, as far as putting opponents to death is concerned, for in SClrah v. 27, it is written : " Verily the recompense

1 Rautaius Sa/d, vol. ii, p. 164. Compare Rev. ix. 4.

* Tdrikhu'l Kkula/d, p. 67.

^^jkyJI ^Jc oil _ LiW; ^»¿«Jlj t. t.J ...II 1 (j-j^J) * » m. , i. I.J. JU-cl ^ I l-.i^S'

('Alt's Dfwdn, p. 52.) of those who wage war against God and His Apostle and run after evil in the land is that they be slain or crucified, or that their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they be banished from the land." In SOrah ix. we find it enacted that, after the end of the four sacred months of a. h. i i, no agreement with the Polytheists was to be regarded as binding (vers. 1-4). " When the sacred months are past, then slay the Polytheists wherever ye find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in ambush for them in every ambuscade" (ver. 5). Only on condition of their paying zakat and observing the fixed times of prayer and repenting, that is, becoming Muslims, were they to be spared. As for the " People of the Book", we find their sentence in the same Surah, for to the Muslims is given the command: "Fight^1 ye against those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, nor profess the true religion, from among those who have been brought the Book, until they give the jizyah-tax out of hand and be brought low " (or " are little"). This command is still iftcumbent upon Muslims, whose duty it still is to compel Jews and Christians either to become Muslims or to be reduced to a condition worse than that of slaves. As we shall now show, the early Muslims recognized this obligation, and therefore conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Persia, and other lands. Doubtless* the chief reason with many of them for engaging in such conquests was the love of war and the desire of plunder and female slaves: but all this was sanctioned and encouraged by their religion. Hence the professed object of each war was the spread of I slim, and thus it was proclaimed a Jih&d. We have seen that Abti Bakr called the invasion of Syria by this name. The Khalifah 'Umar, in the letter^8 in which he ordered 'Ayiz ibnu'l Ghanam to march to the conquest of Diir Bakr and

1 Stirah ix. 29.

' Kltibu'l WSqidi, Futdhul 'Ajam, p. 2.

of Rabi ah in Firs, speaks of this war also as a Jihdd. Historians openly apply the same title to each of these wars of conquest. And the terms offered to the inhabitants of these countries, being those laid down in SGrah ix. 29, show that the Muslim generals fully recognized this. A few examples will suffice to prove this fact.

Abti 'Ubaidah wrote thus to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, when it was besieged by the Muslim army : "If^1 you conform to our religion, or agree to pay the jizyah-tax., I shall withdraw from the skirt of your reputation the hand of interference. But if not, I shall appoint against you a people, in whose opinion it is a more acceptable thing to be slain for their faith than it is among you to eat the flesh of the hog and to drink wine." Similarly the Kitibu'l Wiqidl^2 informs us that Yazid was sent with the following message to the people of Jerusalem : " What say ye in answer to the invitation to I slim and the Truth and the Creed of Simplicity ? And it is the creed, ' There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Apostle of God': that our Lord may forgive you those of your offences which are past, and that ye may obviate the shedding of your blood. And, if ye refuse and do not assent unto us, then make terms of peace for your town, as others than you have done of those who were greater than you in number and stronger than you. And if ye reject these two conditions, perdition is due to you, and may your going be to Hell-fire ! " The interpreter explained all this simply and quite correctly by saying, " This chieftain says so and so, and he invites you to one of these three terms, either entrance into Isl&m, or the payment of the jizya.k-ta.yL, or the sword." The Christians replied : "We shall not turn back from the religion of glory and of acceptance ; and if we be slain, it will be easier for us than that."

1 Rauzatu's Sa/d, vol. ii, p. 241.

' Futdhush Shdm, vol. i, p. 340, printed at Safdari Press, Bombay, a.h. 1298.

Similarly, at the beginning of his account of the invasion of Armenia, the Kátibu'l Wáqidl tells us[1]that messengers were sent by the Arabs to the Armenian Bústiús, governor of Yadlis, to say: " We have been sent to you as envoys to summon you to testify that there is no god but God alone ; He has no Partner: and that Muhammad is His Servant and His Apostle : or that ye should enter into that into which the men have entered, and that ye should pay the fizyah-tax out of hand, and be brought low."

When Sa'd ibn Abl Waqqás sent Mughairah ibn Shaibah to Yezdijird's court at Madá' in, the message which he delivered in the Khalifah's name to the astonished King of Persia was this : " We^2 invite thee to the acceptance of the imperishable Law. If thou dost accept, no one shall set foot within thy realm without permission, nor demand a copper coin except the zakát^3 and the Fifth.3 And if grace become not thy companion,4 do thou become subject to the jizyah-tax. Otherwise, prepare for war." Another account given by the same historian^8 runs thus : " If thou refusest to accept the faith and to pay the zakcit and the Fifth, give the jizyah-tax, and in that state thou shalt be brought low." Yezdijird asked the meaning of " low " (or " little "—j¿\J). Mughairah replied : " * Low' means this, that, when thou payest the jizyah-tax, thou remainest standing on foot, and a scourge is held over thine head."

Somewhat similarly the Kátibu'l Wáqidi relates® that Abú Músa was sent by Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqás to the Persian general Rustam before the battle of Qádisiyyah to say: "We summon you to bear witness : and, if ye refuse Islám, then pay the jizyah-tax; and, if ye refuse, then the sword is a very reliable witness."

It is evident that, in thus compelling Christians and Zoroastrians to choose between (i) becoming Muslims against their will, (2) paying; the jizyah-tax and being bitterly humiliated, and (3) being put to "death, the Arab generals were obeying the Qur'ln (Stirah ix. 29). In fact, they might have treated the Zoroastrians in the sternef way mentioned in Stirah ix. 5, had they not considered them entitled to rank as " People of the Book", though doubtless that title properly belonged only to the Jews and the Christians.

Occasionally when people were thus forced to accept Isllm at the point of the sword, they rejected it when they thought themselves strong enough to do so. Thus in a. h. 30 we are told that the Khallfah 'Uthm&n sent 'Uthmln ibn Abt'l 'A§, or Sa'd his brother (for accounts differ) against Yezdijird, who was advancing to the assistance of the people of Istakhr [Persepolis], of whom we learn that they had previously " yielded[1] obedience to the chiefs of Isllm ", but had now " turned aside from the right way ".

But to abandon I slim when proved not to be from God is a dangerous thing. By the law of the Qur'an the punishment iss death; for in Surlh ii. 214 it is enacted that " Whosoever shall apostatize from his religion, let him die for it, and he is an infidel". If a man outwardly professes Isllm but inwardly disbelieves, his condition is that of a hypocrite, and, according to the Qur'ln, the hypocrites will be in the lowest^8 abyss of Hell. Yet the chief duty of Muslims in the early days of I slim was to force people by the sword to become Muslims outwardly, that is, to become hypocrites. Worldly temptations were also held out to men as inducements to accept I slim in appearance, and in these two ways it spread. Ignorance was then employed to safeguard men's faith. This is clear from the Khalifah 'Umar's commands regarding the libraries captured in conquered lands. Regarding the great library at Alexandria, Abtl'l Faraj tells us that, when 'Amr ibnu'l 'As conquered Egypt in a.d. 640, 'Umar was asked whether the library was to be preserved or not. In reply he said : " If these writings of the Greeks agree with the Book of God " (the Qur'in), " they are useless, and need not be preserved. If they disagree with it, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed." Similarly, as we are informed in the Kashfu'z Zuntln, Sa'd ibn AbCl Waqqis, having conquered Persia, wrote to ask the same Khalifah what he should do with the libraries of Persia. The reply was : " Cast them into the rivers. For, if in these books there is guidance, then we have still better guidance in the Book of God. If, on the contrary, there is in them that which will lead us astray, then may God protect us from them." In each case the order was obeyed. Only in the time of the Mu'tazilah has any freedom of thought and inquiry been permitted in any Muslim land.

The persecutions inflicted on those who refused to accept I slim in Persia compelled many of the Zoroastrians. to flee to India, where their descendants now form a large and industrious trading community in Bombay. They found it far more tolerable to live amid the idolatrous Hindtis than to endure the ignominy and oppression which they had to suffer from the Muslims in their own land. Those who live or have travelled in Muslim lands well know how miserable is the condition of the Dkimmts (whether Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians) there. They cannot even give evidence in a court of justice, they cannot defend themselves from wrong and violence, they are liable at any moment to be massacred by - the Muslims,— as at Adana recently, in Armenia and in Bulgaria only a few years ago. For many generations the children of Christians were often taken away by force, made Muslims by violence, and compelled to serve as Janissaries, until the whole of the Janissaries were disbanded one day by the Sultan's command.

When the reviser of these pages was in Persia, near Isfahan, he had a Muslim acquaintance there who dwelt in a neighbouring village. This Persian said to him : " When I was a little boy, some fifty years ago, my parents and I and all the people in our village were Zoroastrians. One day the chief Mujtahid of the city of Isfahan issued a decree, commanding us all to embrace Isl&m. We petitioned the Prince-Governor of the province, we refused to change our religion, we offered bribes to leading Muslim nobles and 'Ulami. They took our money, but did not help us at all. The Mujtahid gave us until midday on the following Friday to be converted, declaring that we should all be put to death if we did not at that time at latest become Muslims. That morning all the lowest ruffians from the city surrounded our village, each with some deadly weapon in his hand, awaiting the appointed hour to permit him to begin the work of plunder and murder. We waited in vain until it was almost midday, hoping that our enemy would relent. As he did not, just before noon we all accepted I slim, and thus saved our lives."

In the same country until quite recently there was still in force the law that, if any single member of a Christian family, even the youngest son, could be induced to embrace I slim, all the property of the family was at once handed over to him ; his father, mother, brothers and sisters being turned out of their home and left destitute. When we consider the cruelty and oppression which for about 1,300 years has been the lot of Dhimmis in all Muslim lands, the marvel is that any of them have been able to resist the inducements and the pressure brought upon them to become hypocrites.

We have now finished our examination of Islam's claims to be God's finai Revelation of His Will. When we consider the Criteria laid down in the Introduction, and inquire how far Islâm satisfies them, the answer is not difficult to give. To us it seems that the only one of these Criteria which Islâm can in any degree claim to satisfy is the fourth. Christianity, on the other hand, satisfies them all. The conclusion is obvious.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

Now, respected reader, we have together examined all the asserted proofs of the truth of Islam, and we have inquired into Muhammad's claim to be the Lord of the Apostles and the Seal of the Prophets. It lies with you to decide for yourself, in the sight of God who knoweth men's hearts, whether this claim is true or false. May God Most Merciful guide you to a right decision!

You have to choose between the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and Muhammad ibn 'Abdu'll&h : between Him who went about doing good and him who is called the Prophet with the Sword : between Him who said, "Love^1 your enemies," and him who said, " Slay 2 your enemies and the enemies of God " : between Him who prayed 3 for His murderers, and him who caused those who lampooned him to be murdered. You are doubtless aware of what kind were Christ's life and character, and you know that these form one of the most decisive of the proofs of the truth of His claims. " The Sun has come as the proof of the Sun : if thou seekest the proof of Him, turn not thy face from Him." On the other hand, you have seen what Muslim writers tell us of the life and character of Muhammad. You must now judge for yourself whether these were so very far superior to Christ's that you are justified in rejecting Christ, and entrusting your eternal salvation to Muhammad instead of to Him. You are aware that the Bible, the Word of God (¿if teaches us that, in accordance with

1 Matt. v. 44. 2 Rauzatus Safd, vol. ii, p. 164.

3 Luke xxiii. 34.

prophecy, Christ laid down His precious life for sinners and made atonement for our sins, whereas Muhammad died a natural death, and did not even claim to die for other men's sins. According to His own promise and the testimony of His disciples, Christ rose again the third day from the dead, and thereby proved that He had overcome[1] death. The grave and death still hold Muhammad.

At Medinah, between the tombs in which lie the bodies of Muhammad and Abti Bakr, there may be seen an empty grave, which Muslims call " The grave of our Lord Jesus, the Son of Mary". It has never been occupied. Its emptiness reminds the pilgrim that Christ is alive? while Muhammad is dead. Which of the two is the better able to help you ? You have been taught to pray to God on behalf of Muhammad, so that you doubtless believe that he needs your prayers instead of being able to aid you. You believe that Christ will come again, and are now expecting His return with fear. We Christians too await His Second Advent with hope and joy, knowing that His own promise^3 and that of His * angels will be fulfilled. We look and long for the time when the words of the Apostle shall receive their fulfilment: "6Behold, He cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him ; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him." Hence it is that, as that glorious day draws nearer and nearer, we are the more zealous to obey His parting command 8 and to proclaim the Good News to all creation. Our time here on earth is short, and yours may not be long. Hence, as dying men to dying men, we call upon you to turn to the Living God, the Holy, the Just, the Merciful. We pray you to accept into your inmost hearts Him who is the Light of the World,7 so that

during this life you may walk in the light of God's truth, and escape the snares and deceits of the Devil and the chains and slavery of sin, and finally may not be ashamed before Christ at His coming to judge the world [1] in righteousness. For "2we must all be made manifest before the judgement-seat of Christ". To Him has been given "the Name^3 which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father". Some day you must kneel before Him ; why not now ?

We bring you the good news of His love, which led Him to lay down His life for you, who as yet do not believe in Him, as truly as for those^4 who have already become His disciples. He now offers you freely the gift^5 of salvation, the assurance of God's forgiveness and grace to serve Him in newness of life, and finally a place in the many mansions^9 in God's immediate presence in the Heavenly Places, into which nothing that defiles 7 can enter.

Pray therefore, my brother, that God may guide you aright and lead you to a right decision in this great matter ere it is too late. Thus you will be on God's side in the great contest between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. So shall you find the Truth in Him who is the Way,8 the Truth and the Life : and, having here walked daily with Him and received into your heart that peace which the world cannot give, being freed from the fear of death and hell, you will be able to look forward with gladness to a glorious Resurrection. And when He comes again to judge the world in righteousness, you shall receive from His pierced hand the crown of everlasting life.

• John xiv. 3. John xiv. 6.

o

LIGHT OF LIFE

P.O.BOX 18 A - 9503 VILLACH- Austria

Price Pages: in DM:

112 5.—

372 8.—

100 3.—

225 6.—

32. 2.—

Price Min.: in DM:

40/21 6.— 31/21 6.—

22 6.—

32. 6.— 22 6.—

33. 6.—

BOOKS AND CASSETTES FOR SERVANTS OF THE LORD AMONG MUSLIMS

BOOKS

Abd Al-Masih WHO IS ALLAH IN ISLAM? Pfander THE BALANCE OF TRUTH

(Mizaan-Ul-Haqq)

A Servant CHRISTIAN WITNESS Of The Lord AMONG MUSLIMS

Tisdal! CHRISTIAN REPLY TO

MUSLIM OBJECTIONS

Abd Al-Masih WHY IS IT DIFFICULT FOR A MUSLIM TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN?

CASSETTES

Dr. Thomas SIN AND ATONEMENT

Dr. Thomas MYSTICISM IN ISLAM

Dr. Thomas ESCHATOLOGY IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

Dr. Thomas THE ASCENSION OF

CHRIST AND HIS RETURN IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

Dr. Thomas MISSIONARY DIALOGUE

L. B. Hamadeh THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP

3 See Mishkatu'l Mas&bih, Bab i, fasl iii. 1, and Bab xxv, fasl i. 1.

I. With regard to matrimonial affairs : in SOrah iv. 3 the rule is laid down that each Muslim may have one or two or three or four wives at a time, " or what your right hands possess." A1 Baiz&wi explains the latter phrase as meaning concubines or slave-girls (<¿1^-)- This verse sanctions polygamy and servile concubinage among Muslims for all time, rendering permanent the many evils thereby caused, of which Muslim lands are

1 Vide Sfirah ii. 107, and Baizawi's note.

1 Sflrahs iii. 68, 109, 198; iv. 157 ; xxix. 45, &c., &c.

1 Ar Razi, vol. v, pp. 28, 29.

2* Baiziwi, edition printed at Leipzig in a. d. 1846, p. 424.

3 Jalal&n, Part i, p. 205.

1 Vol. 1, p. 259. * ^iilT vliSOl.

' Vol. i, p. 625. He also gives another explanation, which he does not accept, according to which the Zabiir denotes the inspired books

1 Vide Joshua Ben Sirach's grandson's Preface to his grandfather's Proverbs.

d 2

1 Vol. i, p. 78. 2 Vol. i, pp. 636, 637.

1 Izharu'l Haqq, p. 166.

1 Mishkat, pp. 185 sqq.

1 He records it, but does not adopt it. In De Doctrina Christiana,

1lib. ii, cap. 15, he seems to favour the numbers in the LXX, but in De Civitale Dei, lib. xv, capp. ro, n, 13, he decides in favour of the Hebrew text on this point. 2 Vol. i. p. 78.

1 In another edition of Baizawi, vol. i, pp. 104, 105.

2^1 Vol. i, p. 143.

3Other various readings in the Qur'an will meet us as we proceed in the present Treatise.

1 For the account of the revision of the Qur'an under 'Uthman the Khalifah, see Mishkdlul Masdbih, pp. 185, 186. There we are told that, after the revision, he ordered every sheet and volume of the older form of the Quran to be burnt, except Hafsah's copy. But MarwSn, when he was governor of Medinah, burnt that also.

1 Sfirahs ii. 130 (Baizawf explains " what was sent down to

Abraham", &c., as iii. 78; iv. 161. Compare also the mention of God's " Books" (^-Jfj) in Sfirah ii. 285 and elsewhere; also Sfirah lxxxvii. 19 .. 4..«° I („¿s-«.

1 The Qur'in tells us (Sfirah iii. 109, no) that in Muhammad's time there existed among the People of the Book some good men who used to recite the Book at night. Hence* it is clear (1) that these righteous men would not have allowed it to be corrupted; (2) that the Book then existed; (3) that it was known and recited.

1 See Part III, ch. vii.

1Part I, ch. i.

1Matt. v. 17; xxi. 42; xxvi. 54; Mark xii. 24; Luke xxiv. 27, 45 ; John v. 39, &c., &c.

1Num. xxxvi. 13; Deut. xxxi. 1-8.

1^3 Lev. xviii. 24-30; Deut. ix. 4, 5; xviii. 9-14.

5. 2Gen. xiii. 14-17. 4 Sfirah ii, ver. 248.

6. 3Cf. Sflrah ii, ver. 252. « Cf. Sflrah vi, ver. 85.

1 Compare Sfirahs xxi. 91 and lxvi. 12.

1 See Sflrahs xx. 119; ii. 33, 34; lxx. 29; vi. 76, 77, 78; xiv.

242; xxviii. 14, 15; xxvi. 19; vii. 150; xii. 24; xxxviii. 23, 24, 34; xxxvii. 139-144, &c. [Adam, Noah, Abraham, are by Muslims called Prophets].

1 See also Sftrah iii. 43.

1 See Chapter V of this Second Part of our Treatise.

1 In proof of this, see the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and also the Confessions of the Reformed Churches [in Augusti's Corpus Lihrorum Symbolicorum\

Sfirah lxxxv. 14: see also Mishkdtiil Masdbih, Book "On the Names of God", § ii, pp. 191, 192.

1 Mosheim, Reid's ed., pp. 160, 161.]

2a Hase, Kirchengcschichte, p. 104.]

3 Hippolytus, Philosophumena, ed. Miller, Oxford, 1851, pp. 95- 105.]

4[4 Article in Encyclopaedia Brilannica, by Dr. Ginsburg: largely from the Aramaic work Zohar: vide also Dr. Kalisch's edition of the Sepher Yesirdh!\

1 See instances in The Noble Eightfold Path, pp. 172, 173.] Analects, Bk. XI], ch. ii; Bk. XV, ch. xxiii; Great Learning, ch. x, § 2.

2' Doctrine of the Mean, ch. xiii, § 4. [I owe these quotations to Mr. Stanley Smith of Tsechowfu, China.]

3O

Ibn Athtr, vol. ii, p. 84.

1 Notice this as of supreme importance as a complete refutation of the Muslim argument. Compare Sftrah vii. 63, 71, 83 (where to 'Ad, Thamfld, and Madyan are sent Hfid, Salih, and Shu'aib, each being called " their brother", though each addresses those to whom he is sent as "My people "): cf. Sfirah vii. 57 : also Sflrah xi. 27, 30, 52, 64> 85; and Sflrah xxvi. 105, 106; 123, 124; 141, 142; 176, 177.

1 Tdrikhu'l Kkula/d (»Ulsjl ^U), printed at the Muhammadi Press, Lahore, Panjab, a. h. 1304, p. 66.

1* Futdhu'sh Sh&m (^LliT printed at the Nawal Kish6r Press,

Kanpflr, a.h. 1287, p. 5.

2^1 Ardta stellar is.

3^1 In the Rauzalu's Safd (vol. ii, p. 164) we are told that, before

1Mishkdt, p. 185. Bukhâiî derived his information from Anas ibn Mâlik.

2Sûrah xxxiii.

1 Ibn Khaldun, vol. ii, p. 391.

1J Ibid., vol. i, pp. 171, 172.

1Other imperfections are pointed out in the Mandru'l Haqq, Arabic ed., Oxford University Press, a.d. 1894, pp. 14-16.

2See Maqdlah fil Islam, Appendix on the Style of the Qur'an.

1 A1 Baizawi says:—jjuxJl ^ eLic ¿1 Jj^ b l^Jlii.

2' Ibn Ishaq says lhat at Badr Muhammad had 83 Meccans, 61 Ausites, and 170 Khazrajites, in all 314 men. AbQ Jahl had about 600.

1 Siralu'r Rasul, vol. i, p. 105.

- Comment, on SGrah xviii. 82 ; vol. i, p. 572.

- Sfirah xviii. 94, 97, 98. 4 Quoted by Al BaizSwi.

1 The word (jli. is used.

J As is commanded regarding Muhammad, in Mishkdt, p. 78. No oiher Prophet needs his people's prayers: it is admitted that Muhammad does.

1 Compare Sftrah xvi. 103.

1 Matt. xxiv. 35; Markxiii. 31; Luke xxi. 33 : compare John xii. 48.

• Gal. i. 8, 9.

T 2

1 In his commentary on Sflrah Ivi. 18, he writes thus:—i^lySb jJaJl »L-.J JjjJIj J-£-*Jlj ilsojj i^Jtllj «I,}!! ^ — jy,L)lj

¿» ¿A

1 A1 Zamakhshari explains " what went before ", as referring to the affair of Zainab, and "what followed after " to that of Mary the Copt.

1 Mishkdtul Masdbih, p. 62. s Mishkdt, p. 74.

' Mishkdt, p. 76. 4 Mishkdt, p. 206.

6. Mishkdt, p. 210. Similar traditions are given in Mishkdt, pp. 100, 104, &c.

' Quoted in Mishkdt, p. 107.

6. Haydtul QulUb, vol. ii, p. 75.

1 Muhammad. 1 Ubai.

* Husband of Safiyyah, w hom Muhammad took for a wife a very few days later.

1Kashfuz ZunUn, vol. ii, pp. 34-37.

2See the Introduction to the Mishkai, last page : ed. of a.h. 1298,

3Haidari Press, by Shaikh 'Abdfi'l Haqq of Dehli.

4' Kashfuz Zuniin, vol. ii, p. 34. 4 Mishkdt, pp. 523, 524.

1 Rom. xiv. 4.

1 Very full details of his conduct as a husband are given in the

2Rauzatul Ahbdb.

3' i.e. in Sflrah iv. 3. 3 Vol. ii, p. 132.

1 Ibn HishSm, vol. iii, p. 94; Ibn Athfr, vol. ii, pp. 117, 118; Mishkdt, pp. 262, 272.

1 For example, about Safiyyah, see Wáqidí's Kildbul Maghdzi, PP- 132. 133-

* Síratu'r Rasúl, Part II, p. 148, also p. 75; Wáqidí, Kildbul Maghdzi, pp. 125, 126.

1 Ibn Hisham, vol. ii, p. 22.

" Ibid,, vol. ii, p. 25. Ibn Athir tells the same story in vol. ii, p. 49.

' Vol. ii, pp. 73, 74 : also in Ibn Athir, vol. ii, pp. 54, 55, and Rauzatu's Sa/d, vol. ii, pp. 100-102.

1 Ibn Athir, vol. ii, p. 17. 1 Ibid. ' Ibid.

4. Mishkdi, p. 514: see also the Turkish work, Mirdt i Kaindt, vol. i, p. 409.

5. Mishkdi, p. 514.

1 Siratur Rasul, vol. i, pp. 73-88.

J Who thereby gained his liberty.

® Ibn Hisham, vol. i, p. 111.

1 Ibid., vol. i, p. 114. 1 Vol. i, p. 119. 3 Vol. i, p. 136.

4 Vol. i, p. 146. s Vol. i, p. 127.

' In Sûrah xviii. 75, 76, is an admission that Muhammad was then in danger of making a compromise with the Polytheists.

1 Ibn Hisham, vol. i, p. 150. ' Ibid.

' Vol. i, p. 151. 4 Vol. i, pp. 155, 159.

s Vol. i, p. 157. ' Vol. i, p. 164. 7 Vol. i, p. 159.

* Vol. i, p. 169.

1Matt. v. 32 and xix. 9; Mark x. 11 ; Luke xvi. 18.

2Katibu'l Waqidi, Futuhush Sham. Even earlier he had shown his propensities : Rauzatus Sa/d, vol. ii, p. 230.

3s Vol. i, p. 177.

z

1 Ibn Hish&m, vol. iii, p.'78. ' Risdlatu 'Abdilldh, &c., p. 47.

' pp. 43-47,

* Ibid., pp. 66, 67. [There are some misprints in the Arabic text, which in this translation I have tried to correct.]

1 Fuiúhu'l'Ajam, p. 62 ; printed at Kánpur, a.h. 1287.

- Rauzatus Sa/d, vol. ii, p. 246.

' [Due from all Muslims.']

- i. e. if thou dost not accept Islam. 5 Ibid.

- Futühül 'Ajam, p. 72.

1 Rauzatus Sa/d, vol. ii, p. 258.

* In Ibn Hishim, vol. ii, p> 217, a man is sentenced to death for abandoning Islam.

® Sftrah iv. 144.

1 2 Tim. i. 10. * Rev. i. 18.

' John xiv. 3. * Acts i. 11.

" Rev. i. 7. c Matt, xxviii. 18-20.

' John viii. 12.

a a

1 Matt. xxv. 31-46. * 2 Cor. v. 10.

3 Phil. ii. 0-11. 4 1 Cor. xv. 3.

* Rom. vi. 23. 7 Rev. xxi. 27.

Table of Contents

Mizanu'l Haqq: The Balance of Truth