مختصر الجواب الصحيح لمن بدل الدين المسيح
The Sound Response to Those Who Altered the Religion of the Messiah (Abridged) By Shaykh al-Islam Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul-Halīm ibn ‘Abdus-Salām ibn Taymiyyah (661-728 AH) Abridged and edified by Dr. Abdur-Rahim ibn Sumayl as-Sulami Adjudicated and reviewed by: Professor Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ash-Sharqāwi Professor Saud ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azīz al-‘Urayfi
This PDF is generated automatically from the book's text; its layout may differ from the printed edition.
The Sound Response to Those Who Altered the Religion of the Messiah (Abridged)
By Shaykh al-Islam Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul-Halīm ibn ‘Abdus-Salām ibn Taymiyyah (661-728 AH)
Abridged and edified by Dr. Abdur-Rahim ibn Sumayl as-Sulami
Adjudicated and reviewed by:
Professor Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ash-Sharqāwi
Professor Saud ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azīz al-‘Urayfi
[The Introduction to the Abridged Version]
Praise be to Allah and may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. To proceed:
Allah Almighty sent His Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) with the mission of devoting worship to Allah Almighty alone and disavowing polytheism. This is Islam with which Allah sent all prophets. He, Glorified be He, says: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and shun false gods."} [Surat an-Nahl: 36]. He Almighty also says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted." If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided. But if they turn away, then they are in plain dissension. Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136-137] This is the common religion and shared faith among all prophets. Allah Almighty made the mission with which He sent His Prophet (ﷺ) the seal of prophethood and the final message, as it comprises justice and excellence in its laws and rulings.
Allah Almighty gave glad tidings about the Prophet's coming in the Divine Books He revealed to His prophets. The People of the Book, however, did not adhere to the beliefs, legislations, and prophesies contained in the Torah and the Gospel. Rather, they distorted them and changed their words and meanings. Then, when the noble Messenger (ﷺ) came with the revelation as a bringer of good news and as a warner, they were the first to disbelieve in him, out of oppression, transgression, misguidance, and deviation.
The noble Messenger (ﷺ) called the People of the Book to monotheism, faith, and guidance. Allah Almighty revealed many Qur’anic verses that demonstrate their condition, traits, disbelief, and their distortion and alteration of the scripture. He (ﷺ) also engaged in a debate with the Najrān delegation and challenged them for mubāhala (invocation of Allah's curse). The first verses of Surat Āl ‘Imrān were revealed in relation to them. The Prophet (ﷺ) fought them at the battle of Tabūk, and fighting and hostility continues to this day.
The conflict between Muslims and the People of the Book is enduring until the Day of Judgment, as indicated by the Sunnah and the authentic and successively transmitted Hadīths on the bloody wars with the Romans before the advent of the Hour (the end of the world). At the end of this conflict, Jesus, the son of Mary, (peace be upon him) will descend as a just judge and a ruler. He will break the cross, kill the pigs, abolish the tribute, and rule by Muhammad's pure Shariah. Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book will believe then. Allah Almighty says: {There will be none from the People of the Book but will believe in him [upon his return] before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 159]
The political role of the Christians has declined in this age following the severe conflict with secularism and atheist doctrines. The priesthood belief, however, remains alive in the religious fanaticism and the growing evangelical fundamentalism and its influence on the Western mind and the political decision-making process. Hence, missionary work is one of the key tools used by the secular colonization in modern times. Secularism means release from commitment to religious creeds, yet it has not abandoned its affiliation to the Christian identity in terms of history, thought, or belief.
Through the Islamic history, many debates took place with the People of the Book, and numerous Muslim scholars authored a number of books in response to the Christians. Books were also written by some Mu‘tazilites, like Al-Jāhizh and Al-Qādi ‘Abdul-Jabbār al-Hamadāni. Likewise, the Ash‘arites authored a number of books in response to the Christian beliefs, like Al-Qādi Al-Baqillāni, Ash-Shahristāni, Al-Bāji, and Al-Qarāfi, among others.
But one of the best responses to the Christians, with the strongest argument and the soundest approach, is the book "Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh Liman Baddal Dīn Al-Masīh" by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him), who died in 728 H. A highly valuable and beneficial book, it highlights the reality of Islam and defends it in a sound way. It's not mixed with religious innovations like other books written by scholastics in response to the Christians.
The scholastics' responses to the Christians are highly beneficial, but they contain statements that run counter to the beliefs of the righteous predecessors. They also fall short in discussing the Christian beliefs, because their responses are based on innovated scholastic reasoning about the creeds. This is because they only respond to the Christians in such things realized by reason, like denying Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood and the Trinity. Yet, they do not argue with them over other things, given their belief that these are the fundamentals of the religion. This falls short and opposes the Qur’an's approach. In His Book, Allah Almighty points out those who deviated from the prophets' way and dispraised them thereby, without restriction to what can be realized by reason.
Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh is characterized by its powerful approach and accurate information and its argument with the Christians using both the text and reason. It shows their inconsistencies and the falseness of their arguments. It also reveals their distortions and corrupt interpretations.
The book also contains rare and precious texts that no longer exist today, like some passages from the treatise of Paul of Antioch, which was not published, the treatise of Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb, which is particularly strong in creedal and religious argumentation, and the treatise of Ibn al-Batrīq on the religious history of Christianity and the intellectual developments that happened to it.
The book [Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh] came as a response to the Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, who belonged to the Melkite sect. The reason behind Ibn Taymiyyah's interest in providing a response to this epistle is that it constituted the mainstay of their arguments for validity of their religion, and their scholars used to rely upon it at that time, circulate it among themselves, and rely upon the audible and rational arguments contained therein. Imām Al-Qarāfi (d. 682 H) had provided a response to the previous Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, with his book: [Al-Ajwebah Al-Fākhirah Fi Ar-Radd ‘Ala Al-As’ilah Al-Fājirah] (The Fine Answers in Response to the Wicked Questions). This denotes the significance of this epistle and its influence. About the significance of the Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, Dr. David Thomas said: "This is probably the deepest and strongest epistle in the history of Muslim-Christian relations."
Since the book [Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh] is large in size and contains many elaborations, and a number of specialists did not read its numerous volumes and pages, and even some of those interested in religious debate with the Christians did not read it in full, let alone employ it in the area of their interest; hence, I decided to abridge and edify this book, so that the people interested could find out its valuable content and precious substance.
The abridgement aims at enabling seekers of knowledge to read the essence of the book and its main objective. To this end, we deleted elaborations, repetitions, and the detailed presentation of narrations with repeated content. We also improved the text with headings, takhrīj of narrations, essential remarks, and arrangement of what needs to be arranged, without editing the original layout of the book, changing, or intervening in the author's words and phrases.
The abridgement methodology:
The text and words of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) are kept unchanged. His words were not adapted except in a few cases as necessitated by the need for abridgement. There was also keenness to put the few words added to the text between two square brackets [...] and to use words similar to those employed by Ibn Taymiyyah.
The book is emptied of anything not directly related to the response to the Christians and of repetitions and elaborations as well as of abundant citations, prophecies, and aspects of response, in a way that does not impact the main ideas of the book and the strength of the response.
About repetition, in some places - not many - Ibn Taymiyyah repeats an idea which he talked about before. But, if this repeated idea is mentioned in a new context, like when it is cited as a proof for something not addressed before, the repeated section is kept as it is. Yet, if the repetition pertains to something previously mentioned or its omission will not have any impact on the main ideas of the book, then it is not included.
Regarding elaborations, anything unrelated to the response to the Christians was done away with, like the inclusion of long narrations with their chains of transmission or the historic events and information, and the like.
Concerning the Qur’anic citations, only some verses around which Ibn Taymiyyah's speech revolves are kept, and other citations are referenced as footnotes.
As for the Prophetic citations, where Ibn Taymiyyah cites more than one Hadīth, I generally keep the Hadīth narrated in the Two Sahīh Collections or the Hadīth supporting the main idea if it is narrated elsewhere. In the concluding part of the book, in the section addressing the proofs of prophethood, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) cited a lot of Hadīths. So, the approach adopted in dealing with them was to keep the Hadīths narrated in the Two Sahīh Collections and some of the Hadīths narrated elsewhere, which demonstrate the meaning in a clearer and stronger way.
Regarding the prophecies in the previous scriptures about our Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), the apparent citations from the Torah whose indications are clear were kept. Concerning the citations from the Gospel, all of them were kept, because Ibn Taymiyyah included them one after another and then provided one comment on them. So, if some of them were omitted, this would cause disorder and adversely impact the abridged book.
As for the aspects of response, Ibn Taymiyyah, in few instances, prolongs the response over a certain idea with more than ten aspects, and sometimes up to twenty aspects or so. These aspects may be somewhat intertwined and repeated. For brevity, we kept some aspects and omitted the others. The requirement for keeping a certain aspect of response was that it should be outright and effective in refuting the opposing argument, and that the idea of response in this aspect is not repeated or interlaced with other aspects. Some other times, we keep all aspects, but abridged if they can be abridged.
The material is organized and arranged by putting some sections ahead or after others, if needed. This was done in a few instances, two or three, necessitated for the sake of brevity and thereby making the text consistent and free from repetition.
Headings for the chapters are put in the appropriate locations in the book. With respect to setting the chapters, this is originally the work of Ibn Taymiyyah. He mentioned in the beginning of the book that the content of the Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, covers six chapters, and Ibn Taymiyyah put headings for them that demonstrate their meanings and ideas in the initial section of the book. He, however, did not put them within the book at their appropriate locations before the texts of Paul's Epistle. So, these six chapters have been placed at their appropriate locations in this book, between two square brackets [...].
Suitable headings are put within the book's content to make the material clear and orderly to the reader. All these headings are placed between two square brackets [...]. Some marginal headings are also included to help the reader understand the core of the overall idea.
Two forms of bullet points are used:
First: The black circle: This points to the start of the full new text from the Epistle of Paul, as Ibn Taymiyyah would first include a long text from Paul's Epistle and then divide it into small parts, criticizing each part separately. So, I placed the circle at the beginning of every new complete text.
Second: The dash (-): This points to the numeration of some aspects of response and related points.
Takhrīj for the Prophetic texts are done at their very locations, even if they are cited a number of times. We did not refer the repeated Hadīths to the location of the first takhrīj; rather, we mentioned the takhrīj again.
All of the texts were referred to from the Epistle of Paul included in the book to his printed Epistle, which is part of an extensive study in French that was published in Paris, 1903 AD, with the title: The Christian East. If a text cited from Paul's Epistle did not exist in his printed Epistle, which happened in a few cases, we mentioned it in the footnote.
In producing this abridged book, I relied upon the verified text of the book released by At-Ta’sīl Center for Studies and Research, 1st edition: 1441 H - 2019 AD.
In establishing the Qur’anic verses, I relied upon what the verifiers relied upon, as they established the recitation of Abu ‘Amr al-Basri based on the relevant manuscripts.
Rectifying some apparent grammatical and verbal errors, while mentioning the original verified text in the footnote, we put the verbal corrections between two square brackets [...].
Finally:
I praise Allah Almighty, first and foremost, for enabling this work to be completed, and I thank all those who helped in this abridgement. I also thank the dear brothers at At-Ta’sīl Center, particularly Mr. Nādir bin Muhammad Bawzīr for the academic, technical, and managerial services he provided, which had a significant impact on this work.
I also thank the two honorable reviewers:
Professor Muhammad bin Abdullah ash-Sharqawi.
Professor Saud bin Abdul-Azīz al-‘Urayfi.
For the useful remarks and suggestions they provided, which further helped in improving and perfecting the abridged book.
I implore Allah Almighty to give us the reward and render our work purely done for His sake and bless it and make it useful and enduring knowledge; indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
Dr. Abdur-Rahim ibn Sumayl as-Sulami
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
There is none worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
{All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, Master of the Day of Judgment.} [Surat al-Fātihah: 2-4]
And {All praise is for Allah Who created the heavens and earth and made darkness and light. Yet those who disbelieve set up equals to their Lord.} [1] [Surat al-An‘ām: 1]
Allah is the Most Great, Allah is the Most Great; none is worthy of worship except Allah; Allah is the Most Great, Allah is the Most Great; praise be to Allah; Allah is the Most Great, and abundant praise is due to Allah; and glory be to Allah in the morning and evening!
I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, alone, with no partner, the Ever-Living, the All-Sustaining, Who is not overtaken by drowsiness or sleep. {To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth. Who is there that can intercede with Him except with His permission? He knows what was before them and what will be after them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge, except what He wills. His Kursī [footstool] extends over the heavens and earth, and safeguarding of both does not weary Him, for He is the Most High, the Most Great.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 255]
The One God, the Eternal Refuge, Who neither begets nor is He begotten, and there is none comparable to Him, the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden. {The Sovereign, the Most Holy, the Most Perfect, the Granter of Security, the Watcher over all, the All-Mighty, the Compeller, the Supreme.} [Surat al-Hashr: 23] {The Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. He has the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and earth glorifies Him, for He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.} [Surat al-Hashr: 24]
And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. He sent him with guidance and the religion of truth, so that He makes it prevail over all religions, and sufficient is Allah as a Witness.
Allah Almighty sent him with the truth ahead of the Day of Judgment as a bringer of good news, a warner, and a caller to Allah, with His permission, and an illuminating lamp.
He sent him to all humankind and jinn, the Arabs and non-Arabs among them, and those who have a Book and those with no Book. He sent down to him. {The best message – a consistent Book of repeated lessons – causing the skins of those who fear their Lord to shiver, then their skins and their hearts soften at the remembrance of Allah. This is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. But whoever Allah causes to stray, there is none to guide him.} [Surat az-Zumar: 23]
A Book He sent down to him to bring people out of darkness into light, with their Lord's permission, and guide them. {To the path of the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy. Allah, to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth.} [Surat Ibrāhīm: 1-2]
He guided them with it {To a straight path, the path of Allah, to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 53] This straight path is the path of those whom Allah Almighty has blessed, i.e., the prophets, the people of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous.
Allah Almighty endowed Muhammad (ﷺ) with particular traits with which He privileged him over all prophets and messengers, and He gave him the best Shariah and the most perfect and clearest way of life.
He also made his Ummah the best nation ever produced for humankind. They complete seventy nations, and they are the best and noblest of them, from all races and nationalities.
Allah guided them with His Book to the truth over which there was difference before and made them the best and most balanced nation. They are balanced in their belief in Allah's oneness and in His names and attributes, and in the belief in His Messengers, Books, and legislations, including His commands and prohibitions and the lawful and unlawful.
He commanded them to do what is right and forbade them from doing what is wrong, and made good things lawful for them and impure things unlawful.
He Almighty did not make any of the good things unlawful for them, as He did with the Jews; and He did not make any of the impure things lawful for them, as the Christians considered them to be lawful.
And He did not put restrictions on them concerning purification and impurity, as He did with the Jews; and He did not abrogate the purification after the passing of wind or sexual impurity, as the Christians abrogated it; so, they do not consider purification obligatory for sexual impurity, ablution for prayer, or avoidance of impurity during prayer. Rather, many of their worshipers deem engagement in impurities one of the acts of piety and worship. They would even praise a monk saying: "He did not touch water for forty years." Therefore, they abandoned circumcision, though it is the law of Abraham and his followers.
As for the Jews, when a woman among them menstruates, they do not eat or drink with her or remain with her in one house. The Christians, on the other hand, do not consider it unlawful to copulate with a woman in her menses.
The Jews would not see it necessary to remove impurity. When the clothing of one of them was touched by something impure, he would cut it off with the scissors. To the Christians, on the other hand, there is nothing impure which is forbidden to eat or pray with.
The Muslims are moderate and balanced in their Shariah. They did not reject the abrogating Shariah for the sake of the abrogated one, as the Jews did, neither did they change any of the established Shariah or innovate a new Shariah not sanctioned by Allah, as the Christians did.
They did not exaggerate in their reverence of the prophets and the righteous, as the Christians did, or underestimate them, as the Jews did.
They did not ascribe to Allah Almighty the traits of created beings and their shortcomings and defects, like poverty, stinginess, and incapacity, as the Jews did; neither did they ascribe to created beings the traits of the Almighty Creator in which there is none like Him, as the Christians did.
And they did not disdain to worship Him, like the Jews, or associate partners with Him in worship, like the Christians.
The position of Ahl-us-Sunnah Wa al-Jamā‘ah within Islam is like the position of Islam among the followers of other religions. [2]
So, Allah Almighty combined for this Ummah, through the seal of the prophets, the leader of the pious, and the chief of all children of Adam, the merits which He divided among others, and He gave them increase out of His bounty and even gave them a double share of His mercy. In the Qur’an, Allah Almighty says: {O you who believe, fear Allah and believe in His Messenger; He will give you a double share of His mercy, and will give you a light by which you walk, and forgive you, for Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [This is] so that the People of the Book may know that they have no power over anything of Allah’s bounty, and that all bounty is in the Hands of Allah; He gives it to whom He wills, for Allah is the Lord of great bounty.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 28-29]
Ibn ‘Umar and Abu Mūsa (may Allah be pleased with both of them) reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Your period in comparison to the periods of the previous nations is like the period between the ‘Asr prayer and sunset. And your example in comparison to the Jews and the Christians is like the example of a person who employed some labors and asked them: 'Who will work for me till midday for one Qirāt each?' The Jews worked for half a day for one Qirāt each. The person asked: 'Who will do the work for me from midday to the time of the ‘Asr (prayer) for one Qirāt each?' The Christians worked from midday till the ‘Asr prayer for one Qirāt. Then, the person asked: 'Who will do the work for me from the ‘Asr [prayer] till sunset for two Qirāts each?' It is you who are doing the work from the ‘Asr [prayer] till sunset, so you will have a double reward. So, the Jews and the Christians got angry and said: 'We have done more work but got less wages.' Allah said: 'Have I been unjust to you as regards your rights?' They said: 'No.' So, Allah said: 'It is My bounty which I bestow on whomever I wish.'" [3] [Narrated by Al-Bukhāri and Muslim]
Indeed, Allah, Blessed and Exalted be He, made Muhammad (ﷺ) the final Prophet and completed the religion for him and his Ummah. He sent him after an interval between the messengers and the prevalence of disbelief and disappearance of the right way. Through him, He Almighty restored the damaged signs of faith, overpowered the people of polytheism and disbelief - the worshipers of idols, fire, and crosses - and humiliated the disbelievers of the People of the Book, the people of doubt and suspicion. Through him, He Almighty established the landmark of the religion which He approved, raised the fame of those He chose from His servants, revealed what was hidden with the People of the Book, demonstrated how they departed from the right way, affirmed the truthfulness of the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel, and removed from them the falsity of distortion and alteration.
It was part of Allah's constant rule to send successive messengers and spread them across communities. He would send to every community a messenger to establish His guidance and argument. He, Exalted be He, says: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and shun false gods"}. [Surat an-Nahl: 36]. He Almighty also says: {We have sent you with the truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. There has never been any community except that a warner came to it.} [Surat Fātir: 24]. And He, Glorified be He, says: {Then We sent Our messengers in succession.} [Surat al-Mu’minūn: 44]
Islam is the religion of the prophets
The religion of the prophets and messengers is one, though each of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an has its own laws and way of life. Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "We, the community of the prophets, have one religion. Indeed, the nearest among all people to the son of Mary is me, for there is no prophet between me and him." [Narrated by Al-Bukhāri and Muslim] [4]
The religion of the messengers differs from the religion of polytheists, who split up their religion and became sects. Allah Almighty says: {Adhere sincerely to the true religion in all uprightness. This is the natural disposition with which Allah has created mankind. There is no change in Allah’s creation. This is the straight religion, but most people do not know. Turn to Him [in repentance] and fear Him, and establish prayer, and do not be among those who associate partners with Allah, those who split up their religion and became sects, each party rejoicing in what it has.} [Surat ar-Rūm: 30-32]
So, the religion Allah approved for Himself is Islam, with which He sent all messengers, from the first to the last, and He does not accept any other religion from anyone, whether among the former or the later generations. Look the rest of the verses of praise: [Surat al-Isrā’: 111], [Surat Saba’: 1-2], and [Surat Fātir: 1-2]
It is the religion of the prophets and their followers, as Allah reveals about Noah and the disciples after him. He, Exalted be He, says: {Relate to them the story of Noah when he said to his people: "O my People, if my presence among you and my reminding you of Allah’s signs have become unbearable to you, then in Allah I have put my trust. So, gather all your schemes, you and your [so-called] partners, leaving no room for uncertainty, then carry it out against me, and give me no respite. But if you turn away, then I have not asked you for any reward. My reward is only with Allah, and I have been commanded to be among those who submit to Allah [as Muslims]."} [Surat Yūnus: 71-72] He Almighty also says: {And [remember] when I inspired the disciples: "Believe in Me and in My messenger [Jesus]." They said: "We believe, and bear witness that we submit to Allah [as Muslims]."} [5] [Surat al-Mā'idah: 111]
This is the religion of the earlier and later prophets and their followers - the religion of Islam. It is to worship Allah alone, with no partner.
Worshiping Allah Almighty, in every place and time, is performed by obeying His messengers (peace be upon them). He is not a worshiper of Him who worships Him in a way different from that of the messengers - like those about whom Allah Almighty says: {Or do they have partners who have prescribed for them a religion that is not sanctioned by Allah?} [Surat ash-Shūra: 21]
No one is a believer in Him except if he worships Him by obeying His messengers; and no one is a believer or a worshiper of Him except if he believes in all His messengers and obeys those sent to him. So, every messenger should be obeyed until the next messenger comes, at which time obedience should be devoted to the latter. Whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed Allah, Who says: {We did not send any Messenger but to be obeyed by Allah’s permission.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 64]
Whoever differentiates between the messengers, believing in some and denying others, is a disbeliever. Allah Almighty says: {Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, and they say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," wishing to adopt a way in between. It is they who are the true disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment. But those who believe in Allah and His messengers, and make no distinction between any of them, they will be given their rewards. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 150-152]
The reasons behind the religion's supremacy and continuity
Since Muhammad (ﷺ) is the final Prophet, and no messenger will come after him or someone to renew the religion, Allah Almighty establishes means for the renewal of the religion that make it dominant, as He promised in the Book. Thus, it reveals the merits and commendable traits of belief and identifies the disadvantages and evils of disbelief.
Some of the greatest means for the dominance of belief and religion and supporting the veracity of the news about the messengers include the emergence of opponents to them - the people of clear falsehood. Allah Almighty says: {Similarly, did We make for every prophet enemies, devils from among men and jinn, whispering to one another alluring words of delusion. If Allah had willed, they would not have done so. So, leave them to their fabrications, so that the hearts of those who disbelieve in the Hereafter may incline towards it and be pleased with it and may commit whatever sins they want. [Say]: "Should I seek a judge other than Allah when He is the One Who has sent down to you the Book explained in detail?" Those whom We gave the Book know that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among those who doubt. The Word of your Lord is perfect in truthfulness and justice; none can change His Words, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 112-115]
When the truth is denied and opposed with suspicions, Allah Almighty establishes for it clear signs that confirm the truth and disprove falsehood, given the clarity of the proofs and arguments of the truth and the invalidity of the opposing refutable arguments. [6]
When anyone looks into the true religion and arguments are presented in support of it, its proofs appear, certitude about it strengthens, the believers' belief in it increases, and its light radiates in the hearts of all people.
If someone argues in favor of a false religion and aims at straightening its crookedness, Allah Almighty enables those who hurl the truth at falsehood, and it refutes it. And thus, it vanishes, and it becomes clear that the adherent of this religion is untruthful and foolish. There appear therein such ugliness and defectiveness, hulūl (indwelling) and ittihād (unity), contradiction and atheism, disbelief and misguidance, and ignorance and complete stupidity that reveal to ordinary people that the followers of this religion are among the most misguided people. Moreover, there appears therein such defectiveness that most people did not previously know. This in turn alerts those in slumber who were unable to distinguish between guidance and misguidance. And with knowledge and faith, those with dead hearts become alive. In contrast, there are individuals who do not recognize the merit of those upon whom Allah bestowed His favor among the prophets, the people of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous and do not disapprove of the wrongdoing of those whom Allah is displeased with and those who went astray.
Allah Almighty dispraises the Jews and Christians in His book for such things as denying the truth that contradicts their inclinations, being too arrogant to accept the truth, envying its people and transgressing against them, following the way of misguidance, stinginess, cowardice, hard-heartedness, ascribing to Allah Almighty deficiencies and defects similar to these of created beings, denying the attributes of perfection with which He described Himself and in which none is like Him, exaggerating in reverence for the prophets and the righteous, associating partners in worship with the Lord of the worlds, believing in hulūl and ittihād which makes a created person the Lord of all people, taking the acts of religion away from the Shariah of the prophets and messengers, adopting one's personal inclination, taste, and passion in the matters of religion, without following the knowledge Allah Almighty revealed in His clear Book, taking the senior scholars and worshipers as lords who are followed in what they newly introduce to the religion, in contradiction to the prophets (peace be upon them), as Allah Almighty says: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31] And contradicting what is explicitly reasonable and what is authentically transmitted, based on what is thought to be divine inspirations and sacred revelations, though it is part of the accursed devil's whisperings. About such people, Allah Almighty says: {And they will say: "If only we had listened or understood, we would not be among the dwellers of the Blazing Fire."} [Surat Al-Mulk: 10] He Almighty also says: {We have surely created for Hell many jinn and humans. They have hearts with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle, rather, they are more astray.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 179] There are also other kinds of religious innovations and misguidance for which Allah Almighty dispraised the People of the Two Books. These are among things of which Allah warned this special Ummah, and He made what afflicted them a lesson for people of insight.
The Prophet (ﷺ) stated that these things will necessarily exist in parts of this Ummah, though he also informed that a group of his Ummah will continue to adhere to the truth and will not be harmed by those who oppose them or forsake them till the coming of the Hour. He also pointed out that his Ummah does not unite on misguidance [7] and will not be overpowered by other nations; rather, it will continue to be dominant, victorious, and adhering to its guided and supported Prophet [8]. Nonetheless, there must be in this Ummah those who follow the ways of the Jews, the Christians, the Romans, and the Magians. Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported, as in the Two Sahih Collections, that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "You will follow the ways of those who came before you, in everything as one arrow resembles another, so much so that even if they were to enter the hole of a lizard, you would follow them." They said: "O Messenger of Allah, the Jews and the Christians?" He said: "Who else?" [9]
Abu Sa‘īd al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) reported, as in Two Sahih Collections, that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "My Ummah will copy the deeds of the previous nations and follow them span by span and cubit by cubit." They said: "O Messenger of Allah, the Persians and the Byzantines?" He said: "Who can it be other than them?" [10]
The reason behind writing this book and its approach
One of the reasons for the victory and dominance of the religion was the coming of a book from Cyprus, which offers arguments for the religion of Christians, which are used by their scholars and notables, in the past and modern times - aural (textual) and mental arguments. This entailed that we provide a response giving a decisive statement and clarifying what is right and wrong, so that people of intellect would benefit from this and what Allah sent His messengers with - the Scale and the Book - would prevail.
I will mention here their very statements, chapter by chapter, and follow each chapter with the adequate response, tackling every point, main and secondary, briefly and in detail.
What they mention in this book is the mainstay upon which their scholars rely in this age, and before this age. Some may go beyond this, according to circumstances. We found them relying upon this message before that. Their scholars pass it on among themselves, and there exist old copies of it. It is attributed to Paul the Monk, the bishop of Sidon, from Antioch [11]. He wrote it to some of his friends, and he has other books in support of Christianity. He mentioned that he traveled to the land of the Romans, Constantinople, and the land of Malāfits [12] and some European and Roman outskirts and met the notables in this region and negotiated with their distinguished and knowledgeable figures [13].
He held this message in high regard and gave it this title: "Al-Kitāb Al-Mantīqi Ad-Dawlah Khāni Al-Mubarhin ‘An Al-I‘tiqād As-Sahīh Wa Ar-Ra'i Al-Mustaqīm" [14].
The content consists of six chapters:
Chapter One: They claim that Muhammad (ﷺ) was not sent to them, but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah (the pre-Islamic period of ignorance). They allege that evidence for this exists in the Qur’an and is supported by reason. Demonstrating the centrism (moderation) of Ahl As-Sunnah among the other sects, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) mentioned their moderation in affirming Allah's attributes, the stance towards destiny and the Shariah, the issue of the defiantly disobedient Muslim, and the position on the Prophet's (ﷺ) Companions. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (13/1-14).
Chapter Two: They claim that Muhammad (ﷺ) commended their religion in the Qur’an and praised it in a way that made it incumbent upon them to hold onto it.
Chapter Three: They claim that the prophethood of the previous prophets, like the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel, attest to the veracity of their religion, including the hypostases, the trinity, and unity (incarnation). Thus, they should adhere to it and should not depart from it, unless it is opposed by a law abolishing it or reason refuting it. [Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (2271, 3459)]
Chapter Four: This is acknowledged by reason; and their belief in the trinity is established by reasonable thinking and transmitted law and consistent with the proper principles.
Chapter Five: They claim to be monotheists and defend their words which seem to denote plurality of gods - like the words of the hypostases - by saying that this is like the texts of Muslims which indicate comparison and embodiment.
Chapter Six: Jesus (peace be upon him) came after Moses (peace be upon him) with the utmost perfection. So, there is no need, after perfection, for another law to add anything to it; rather, what comes after that is an unacceptable law.
We here demonstrate that all the arguments they cite - be they aural from the Qur’an, or the preceding scriptures, or reason-based - are totally void. In fact, all the scriptures, along with the Qur’an and reason, constitute arguments against them, not in their favor. Rather, most of the arguments they cite, including some of the prophets' texts as well as reason, are themselves arguments against them, and they indicate falsity of their views, whose incorrectness is also shown by other prophetic texts and intellectual standards. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (3442) and Muslim (2365).
We will also point out that the Trinity and the Unity, which the Christians believe in, have no proof in the Books of Allah, neither the Gospel nor other Books. In fact, the Books prove the opposite, as they are not supported by reason. Indeed, sound reason along with the prophets' texts, establish the opposite. Moreover, most of their religious legislations are newly introduced and innovated - not laid down by Christ (peace be upon him).
Besides, their denial of Muhammad (ﷺ) is a form of their disbelief which is known to every Muslim, like the Jews' disbelief in Christ (peace be upon him), and even worse. They go to extremes in considering the Jews as disbelievers more than the Jews actually deserve. However, even if the Christians exaggerate in regarding the Jews as disbelievers and taking them as enemies beyond the due limit entailed by their concocted immoderation and misguidance, the Jews undoubtedly became disbelievers when they denied the Messiah. Addressing Jesus, Allah Almighty said: {And [remember] when Allah said: "O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to Myself and deliver you from those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] Allah Almighty also says: {Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: "Who will be my supporters for Allah’s cause?" The disciples said: "We are the supporters for Allah’s cause." Then a group of the Children of Israel believed and another disbelieved. We then supported those who believed against their enemies, so they prevailed.} [Surat as-Saff: 14]
The Christians' disbelief by denying Muhammad (ﷺ) and opposing the Muslims are far worse than the Jews' disbelief by mere denial of the Christ. Jesus did not abrogate but a little of the Torah's law, and the rest of his law is based on the Torah. However, the religion of the Christians was mostly invented after the Messiah. So, the Jews' mere denial of Jesus is not as bad a violation of Allah's Shariah as the Christians' denial of Muhammad (ﷺ), who came with a separate Book from Allah Almighty, and nothing of its Shariah is based on the Shariah of anyone else. Allah Almighty says: {Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is being recited to them? Indeed, there is a mercy and reminder in it for people who believe.} [15] [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 51] See the verses on Abraham (peace be upon him) [Surat al-Baqarah: 130-132], on Joseph (peace be upon him) [Surat Yūsuf: 101], on Moses (peace be upon him) [Surat Yūnus: 84], and on Jesus (peace be upon him) [Surat al-Mā’idah: 44]
[Chapter One: The Christians' claim that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was specifically sent to the Arabs]
The writer of this book of the Christians mentioned in his book [16] that someone asked him to closely examine the beliefs held by the Christians, who speak different languages and live in the four corners of the world, from the east to the west, and from the south to the north, and those who live in islands of the sea and those living on mainlands connected to the setting of the sun. And that the Roman Melkite Bishop Damian met with some of their notables and chiefs and discussed with their distinguished and knowledgeable figures the views that reached him through the people he saw on the islands before entering Cyprus, and he talked to them about their religion and beliefs and the arguments they used for themselves.
The writer quoted the bishop as saying: They said: We heard that someone emerged from the Arabs, called Muhammad, saying that he was the Messenger of Allah and bringing a book he said was revealed to him from Allah, and this book soon reached us.
I said to them: If you heard about this book and this person and were keen to obtain this book, which reached you, then why did you not follow him, especially since this book says: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85]
They replied: For various reasons.
I asked: What are they?
They said: One reason is that the book is in Arabic, not in our language, according to it, as it says: {We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an so that you may understand.} [Surat Yūsuf: 2] It also says: {In a clear Arabic language.} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā': 195] Other verses say: {If We had sent it down to any of the non-Arabs, and he had recited it to them, still they would not have believed in it.} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 198-199] It also says: {Just as We have sent you a messenger from among you, reciting to you Our verses, purifying you, and teaching you the Book and Wisdom, and teaching you what you did not know.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 151] In another verse, it says: {Allah has conferred favor on the believers when He sent them a messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and Wisdom, although before that they were clearly misguided.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 164] Another verse reads: {To warn a people to whom no warner had come before you, so that they may take heed.} [Surat al-Qasas: 46] And another verse says: {So that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, in order that they may be guided.} [Surat as-Sajdah: 3] It also says: {So that you warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are heedless.} [Surat Yāsīn: 6]
They said: In light of this, we knew that he did not come to us, but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance), about whom he said that no messenger or warner had come to them before him; we are not required to follow him, because messengers before him had come to us, speaking in our language and warning us with our religion to which we are adhering to this day; and they handed us the Torah and the Gospel in our languages, as confirmed by this book which this man came with, as it says in Surat Ibrāhīm: {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people to make things clear for them.} [Surat Ibrāhīm: 4] It also says: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger} [Surat an-Nahl: 36]. Another verse reads: {Indeed, We sent before you messengers to their people, and they came to them with clear signs.} [Surat ar-Rūm: 47] So, it is clearly mentioned in this book that it was not sent but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah. Then, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) clarified this with two examples: First: When the Quraysh disbelievers denied the Qur’an and strove to disprove it, yet were unable to overcome it, this served to reveal the Prophet's (ﷺ) truthfulness and the veracity of what he came with. Second: When Pharaoh's magicians opposed Moses (peace be upon him), and Allah confuted the magic they presented, this served to reveal Moses' truthfulness and the veracity of what he came with. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (21/1-22).
As for the verse that says: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85], he means - as entailed by the principle of justice - his people to whom he came, not others to whom he did not come. We know that Allah is just, and it is not just of Him to ask any community on the Day of Judgment to follow someone who did not come to them and they did not receive any book from him in their language, nor from a caller before him. [17]
These are their very words in Chapter One.
In this Chapter, they did not touch upon believing in him or denying him. They only claim that in this very book, he did not say "I have been sent to you", but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah; and that, logically speaking, he could not be sent to them.
We begin with response to this and point out that he (ﷺ) stated that he was sent to them and to all mankind and jinn, and he never said he was not sent to them, nor is there anything in his Book that denotes this. They cited certain verses to support their claim and they misunderstood their meanings. They left numerous explicit texts in his Book stating that he was sent to them, the same approach they adopted with the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the prophets' words. They left many clear texts and held onto a few ambiguous texts which they did not understand correctly. () See: Mustadrak Al-Hākim (390) and Jāmi‘ At-Tirmidhi (2167). See: Mustadrak Al-Hākim (390) and Jāmi‘ At-Tirmidhi (2167). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (7319).
It is well known that verifying the truthfulness or falsehood of one who pretends to be a messenger should precede talk about whether his message is universal or specific, though one of the two can be known before the other. But those people claim that his message is specific and say that the Qur’an proves this. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (3456 - 7320) and Muslim (2669).
So, we will respond to what they mentioned in the order they observed, chapter by chapter. We say with the help of Allah the following:
[18] Tackling the issue of someone who declares to the people that he is the messenger of Allah to them - like Muhammad (ﷺ) and others who said "I am the messenger of Allah", such as Abraham and Moses and other true messengers (peace be upon them), and Musaylimah, the liar, and Al-Aswad al-‘Ansi and other false prophets - should be based on two elements:
First: His statements and instructions should be known; and it should be considered whether he said that he is the messenger of Allah to all people, or he said that he is only sent to a certain group of people, to the exclusion of others.
Second: It should be known whether he is a truthful person or a liar. He was from the Roman Melkite denomination. He gained fame in the 12th or 13th Gregorian century (circa 480 - 579 H or 580 - 679 H). It is also said to be the 8th century (circa 80 - 179 H). He wrote treatises on theology, philosophy, and in defense of Christianity, many of which were printed. This treatise by him was published in Paris, along with an extensive study in French, in 1903 AD. Then, it was verified and studied by Paul Khoury, in 1964. Then, it was republished, along with a response to it by Muhammad ibn Abi Tālib al-Ansāri al-Dimashqi, in 2012 AD. See: "The Arabic Manuscripts by Christian Writers", by Louis Cheikho (69), and his introduction to the Treatise of Paul of Antioch: "Khulāsat Mu‘taqad An-Nasāra Fi At-Tawhīd Wa Al-Ittihād" (The Essence of the Belief of Christians on monotheism and Unity), the Mashriq Newspaper (1/840 - September 1898 AD); "Tarīkh Al-Kanīsah Al-Malakiyyah" (The History of the Melkite Church), by Yūsuf the Deacon (1/96); "At-Turfah An-Naqiyyah Min Tarīkh Al-Kanīsah Al-Masīhiyyah", by ‘Īsa As‘ad al-Khoury (201); "Al-Masīhiyyah Wa Al-Hadārah Al-‘Arabiyyah" (Christianity and Arabian Civilization), by George Canawati (268 - 270); and "Sayda ‘Abr Hiqab At-Tarīkh" (Sidon over the Epochs), by Mounīr al-Khoury (135). In the Treatise of Paul of Antioch (p. 413): [Malativa], which is the closest to the town's name in Latin [maldavic]. See: "Al-Masīhiyyah Wa Al-Hadārah Al-‘Arabiyyah" by George Canawati (268). It is an ancient town located in the south-eastern part of Europe. It was one of two emirates forming Romania, and it is currently situated between Romania and Ukraine and known as [maldavic], and its people are called "Maladiva" or "Malativa". Putting the 'v' letter in place of the 't' letter, "Malavita", is a mistake, which occurred in "Al-Bostān Al-Jāmi‘ Li Jamī‘ Tawārīkh Ahl Az-Zamān", by ‘Emad ad-Dīn al-Asfahāni (81), which is consistent with how the Arabs pronounce the names of distant non-Arab cities. The context here indicates the existence of erroneous speech. The meaning, made clear by Paul's Treatise, is that when he traveled to those regions, he wrote this treatise. See: The Treatise of Paul of Antioch (p. 413).
With these two elements, detailed faith is completed, which is knowing the Prophet's truthfulness and knowing what he came with. Al-Mantīqi is derived from Al-Mantiq (logic), and it is used to refer to polemic knowledge in logic. See: Takmilat Al-Ma‘ājim (10/244). Khāni comes from Khān, one of the titles of kings and sultans. See: Mu‘jam Al-Mustalahāt Wa Al-Alqāb At-Tarīkhiyyah (157).
As for the overall faith, it materializes through the first one, which is knowing his truthfulness regarding what he came with, like our belief in the preceding messengers. His truthfulness or untruthfulness may be known before knowing what he says, and what he says may be known before knowing his truthfulness or untruthfulness.
Those people began, in their book, with the Prophet's statements which they claimed are arguments for them that they are not required to follow him and that he praised the religion they are following today, after the abrogation and alteration it went through. Thereafter, they cited separate arguments proving the veracity of their religion, after which they mentioned things that malign him and his religion. That is why we put the response to their arguments from the Qur’an first, as they put them first in their book.
The proofs for the truthfulness of the true prophet and the falsehood of the false prophet are too numerous. He who truthfully claims prophethood is indeed one of the best, most knowledgeable, and most pious servants of Allah, for none is better than the prophets and messengers of Allah (peace be upon them), though some of them are better than others, as Allah Almighty says: {Those messengers: We favored some over others.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 253] Allah Almighty also says: {We have surely favored some prophets over others.} [Surat al-Isrā': 55]
But if one who claims prophethood is a liar, then he is one of the most wicked and worst disbelievers. Allah Almighty says: {Who does greater wrong than the one who fabricates lies against Allah or says, "A revelation has come to me" – whereas nothing has been revealed to him, or the one who says: "I can send down the like of what Allah has sent down."} [Surat al-An‘ām: 93] Allah Almighty also says: {Who is then more unjust than he who tells lies about Allah and rejects the truth when it comes to him? Is there no abode for the disbelievers in Hell? But the one who came with the truth [i.e. the prophet] and [those who] believed in it – it is they who are the righteous. They will have with their Lord whatever they wish for. Such is the reward of those who do good.} [Surat az-Zumar: 32-34] And Allah Almighty says: {On the Day of Resurrection, you will see those who lied against Allah with their faces darkened. Is there not in Hell an abode for the arrogant?} [Surat az-Zumar: 60]
Lying is the root of evil, and the worst type of it is lying about Allah Almighty. Truthfulness is the root of goodness, and the best type of it is telling the truth about Allah Almighty.
In the Two Sahīh Collections, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Adhere to truthfulness, for truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man will keep speaking the truth and striving to speak the truth until he is recorded with Allah as the most truthful. Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hellfire. A man will keep telling lies and striving to tell lies until he is recorded with Allah as a liar." [19]
As this type of person occupies the highest level and that type lies at the bottom, there are big differences between them and clear indications that point to the truthfulness of one of them and the falsehood of the other, in a way that is obvious to everyone who knows their condition.
Therefore, the proofs for the prophets and the indications that point to their truthfulness are plenty and varied, and so are the indications pointing to the falsehood of false prophets.
[The Christians' claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) was not sent to them has two possible aspects.]
Those people claimed that Muhammad (ﷺ) was not sent to them, but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah.
Their claim is subject to two possible aspects: Then, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) pointed out that the Qur’an is a fundamental source like the Torah, and Allah Almighty often mentions both the Torah and the Qur’an together. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/37-38).
They either say that he himself did not claim to have been sent to them, but his Ummah made this claim on his behalf.
Or they say that he claimed to have been sent to them, but he was lying in his claim. The Treatise of Monk Paul, the Bishop of Sidon, from Antioch.
Their speech in the early part of the book denotes the first aspect. But their speech in its end seems to refer to the second aspect. They, however, did not actually deny his mission to the Arabs; they only denied his mission to them. With regard to his mission to the Arabs, they did not explicitly say whether they believed or denied him, though their words apparently seem to entail acknowledgment of his mission to the Arabs. Rather, they believed what is consistent with their position and denied what contradicted it.
[The approach of using the Prophet's (ﷺ) statements as arguments]
We point out that it is not valid for them to use any of the Prophet's statements as an argument, and then we will address both aspects. We will also clarify that it is not valid for them to cite anything of the Qur’an as an argument for the validity of their religion in any way. We will demonstrate that the Qur’an has no argument for them, nor does it contain any contradiction.
Likewise, the books of the previous prophets constitute an argument against them. Indeed, nothing in them argues in their favor, even if Muhammad (ﷺ) were not sent as a messenger; whereas the book brought by Muhammad (ﷺ) is compatible with all the prophets' statements - in disproving their religion and their belief in the Trinity, Unity, and so on - with clear reasoning!
In this book of theirs, they cite the Qur’an as an argument, as well as the Books of the prophets before Muhammad (ﷺ), with reason. We, however, point out that there is no argument for them in what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with, nor in what the prophets before him came with, nor with reason. On the contrary, what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with and what the prophets before him came with and sound reasoning, do all constitute conclusive proofs for the invalidity of their religion.
But, before this, we note that it is not valid in any way for them to cite anything of what the Prophet (ﷺ) came with as an argument. In fact, it is not permissible for someone who denies one word of what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with to cite something merely reported from him as an argument. The same applies to all other prophets (peace be upon them) - unlike citing the words of people other than the prophets as arguments, for some of these words may be agreeable and others not. As for what the prophets (peace be upon them) stated, or those who said, "he is a prophet", none can cite some of these as an argument and leave others, whether they turn out to be true or false.
It is to be said to them, in every case, whether they acknowledge his prophethood to the Arabs or to others, or deny his statement that he is the Messenger of Allah, or keep silent regarding this and that, or believe him in some things and not in others: Your resort to what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with as a proof for that over which you disagree with Muslims is not valid in any way. And your use of anything of the Qur’an as an argument that he was not sent to you or that your religion is true is worthless by all measures. Nonetheless, we will point out - Allah Willing - that all the divine books are consistent with reason, and you have no argument in anything thereof; rather, they all do constitute an argument against you. The Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (413 - 414).
This differs from the case of Muslims, for they can use any of what the prophets before Muhammad (ﷺ) came with as an argument against the Jews and the Christians, but the Jews and the Christians cannot use any of what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with as an argument. This is because Muslims acknowledge the prophethood of Moses, Jesus, David, Solomon, and the other prophets (peace be upon them), and they are obligated to believe in all the Books Allah revealed and all the prophets He sent. This is a fundamental principle in the religion of Muslims. Whoever disbelieves in one prophet, or one Book is considered a disbeliever. Moreover, if someone curses one of the prophets, he is regarded as a disbeliever whose killing is lawful. Allah Almighty says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted." If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided. But if they turn away, then they are in plain dissension. Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136-137]
None of the Muslims deems it permissible to deny any of what had been revealed to those before Muhammad (ﷺ). But, using any of this as an argument against them requires three preconditions:
First: What is reported about the prophets (peace be upon them) should be authentic.
Second: There should be a sound translation into Arabic, or into the language of those addressed, like the Roman or the Syriac. Moses, David, Jesus, and other prophets of the Children of Israel spoke Hebrew. Whoever says that Jesus spoke Syriac or Roman is mistaken.
Third: Interpreting the speech quoted and knowing its intended meaning.
Hence, Muslims would not reject any of the arguments by denying any of the prophets' statements. But they would belie those who convey their statement or interpret it according to their purpose, or, in other words, interpret it wrongly. The principles based on which people can identify a messenger's truthfulness
Nonetheless, some Muslims may be mistaken in denying some transmitted texts or interpreting some of the texts transmitted from them. This is like the error of some of them and the adherents of the other religions in mistakenly denying or interpreting some of the texts transmitted from those whose prophethood is acknowledged. This differs from denying the prophet himself, which is outright disbelief.
The case of the People of the Book is different; they can only achieve their aim by denying some of what Allah has revealed, and once they deny one word of what is told by one who states that he is the messenger of Allah, it becomes invalid for them to cite any of his words as an argument. So, any such argument they use has no weight.
This is because the one who states that he is the messenger of Allah - is either truthful in his statement that he is the messenger of Allah and in everything he informs about Allah, or is liar, albeit in one word told about Allah.
If he is truthful in this, it is unlikely that he would lie about Allah in anything he says about Him, for whoever lies about Allah, even in one word, becomes among those who fabricate lies about Allah and cannot be one of the messengers of Allah.
If someone fabricates lies about Allah, he will turn out to be a false prophet. Such a person's statements about Allah may not be cited as an argument, for it is known that Allah did not send him as a messenger.
If such a person says something and it turns out to be true, it should be treated like any statement made by anyone else. It will be accepted not because he told it about Allah, nor because he is a messenger from Allah. Rather, it is accepted as any true statement by the polytheists and disbelievers is accepted. If idol worshipers say something true about Allah - like the acknowledgement of the Arab polytheists that Allah has created the heavens and the earth - we do not belie them, though they are disbelievers. Likewise, if a disbeliever says that Allah is Living, Capable, and a Creator, we do not deny his statement.
If someone lies about Allah even in one word, saying that Allah has revealed it to him, whereas Allah has not revealed it to him, he is one of the liars, and it is not permissible to cite as an argument any of their statements which they claim: that they are conveying it from Allah Almighty. In terms of their other statements, they are like other people, or like similar liars. If a statement made by them is known to be true from other sources, it is to be accepted, because there is proof for its soundness, not because they said it. But, if it cannot be established as true from other sources, it may not count as an argument, given they are proven to be liars about Allah.
Thus, if those people acknowledge the message of Muhammad (ﷺ) and that he is truthful in what he said about Allah, the Qur’an and the Sunnah, it becomes incumbent upon them to believe in all he is authentically reported to have said, of the Qur’an and the Sunnah; and they are also required to believe in all that the messengers came with.
But, if they disbelieve him in one word or doubt his truthfulness in it, it becomes impossible that they acknowledge him as a messenger of Allah; and if they do not acknowledge him as a messenger of Allah, their use of his statements as arguments becomes like their use of the statements made by other people who are not prophets, or even by liars or people whose truthfulness is questionable. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (6094) and Muslim (2607).
It is well known that if someone is known to have lied about Allah in what he says that he conveys from Allah, or his truthfulness is in doubt, he is not known to be a messenger of Allah or to be truthful in all that he says and conveys from Allah. If this is not known about him, then it becomes known that Allah did not reveal anything to him. Rather, if he is known to be a liar, it is known that Allah did not reveal anything to him and did not send him as a messenger. Examples of those known as liars include Musaylima the Liar, Al-Aswad al-‘Ansi, and Tulayha al-Asadi, as well as Mani and other false prophets.
If his truthfulness is doubted in one word, or it is deemed possible that he may have lied in saying it, intentionally or by mistake, then it is not permissible to believe him in everything else he tells about Allah, for he should be believed in what he says about Allah only if he is a true messenger who does not lie, whether intentionally or by mistake. All those sent by Allah as messengers must be truthful in all that they mention about Allah, not telling any lie therein, on purpose or by mistake.
This is something agreed upon by everyone: The Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others agree that a messenger must be truthful and infallible in what he tells about Allah, and that he does not lie about Allah, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The objective of the message cannot be achieved without this. In the Qur’an, Moses (peace be upon him) said to Pharaoh: {Moses said: "O Pharaoh, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds. I am obliged to say nothing concerning Allah except the truth."} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 104-105] In the famous Quranic reading [20], he states that it is worthy, appropriate, established and settled that he must say nothing about Allah except the truth. In the other reading [21], he informs that he is obligated to say nothing about Allah except the truth.
Allah Almighty says: {If he had falsely attributed something to Us, We would have surely seized him by the right hand, then severed his aorta, and none of you could have rescued him.} [22] [Surat al-Hāqqah: 44-47]
The bottom line is that their use of even one word of what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with is not valid in any way [23]. And that if a person does not acknowledge that someone who proclaims that he is a messenger of Allah is truthful in everything he says about Allah and insusceptible to lying, whether intentionally or by mistake, then he cannot use his statements as arguments.
This principle nullifies the view held by the rational ones among the People of the Book, who revere Muhammad (ﷺ) for his call to the belief in Allah's oneness, his prohibition of idol worship, his confirmation of the Torah, the Gospel, and the messengers before him, and given the apparent greatness of the Qur’an he came with and the merits of the Shariah he brought. Nonetheless, they maintain that he was sent to others; and that he was a just king who exercised a fair policy. Furthermore, he gained part of the knowledge of the People of the Book and others and set for them certain legislation through his knowledge and religion, as their leaders laid down for them the laws and legislations they had.
No matter what they say about this, it will not make them believers in him or justify for them to cite any of his statements as an argument, for he is reported, through successive and mass transmission, known to all communities and groups saying that he is the Messenger of Allah to all humankind and that Allah revealed the Qur’an to him.
So, if he is truthful in this, then whoever disbelieves him even in one word has thus disbelieved the Messenger of Allah, and whoever disbelieves the Messenger of Allah becomes a disbeliever. Yet, if he is not truthful in this, then he is not a messenger of Allah, but a liar; and if someone lies about Allah, claiming that Allah has sent him as a messenger, whereas Allah did not send him, it is not valid to cite any of his statements as an argument.
As for the ignorant among the People of the Book who say that he was a king imposed on them and a messenger of wrath whom Allah sent for a universal purpose, not a religious one, so as to avenge them through him, as He sent Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib and gave them power over the Children of Israel, as He also sent Genghis Khan and other disbelieving and unjust kings as a means of revenge against the sinners - those are worse in denying and disbelieving in him than the others. None of those kings said: Allah revealed a book to him; that the words I convey to you are the words of Allah; that Allah ordered you to believe what I told you and obey his commands; and that whoever did not believe him inwardly and outwardly, Allah would punish him in this world and in the Hereafter. Rather, Allah sent those people for a universal purpose which he decreed and predestined, as He sends a storm with punishment and sends the devils.
The bottom line here is that the difference between the People of the Book over the Prophet (ﷺ) with various views being expressed regarding him, is similar to the difference among the disbelievers, every group of whom would usually hold a different view on the prophets that contradicts the others. Likewise are their views concerning the books revealed to them. All their views are different and wrong. This is the objectionable difference, which Allah Almighty mentions in the verses that read: {But they will not cease to differ, except those whom Allah has given mercy.} [Surat Hūd: 118-119] And in the verses that read: {Indeed, you [Makkans] have conflicting views. He who is diverted from it is destined to be diverted.} [Surat adh-Dhāriyāt: 8-9]
They may say: We only intend to reveal his contradiction and that his words are in conflict with one another.
In response to this, we say: This also means that he is not a true messenger. So, it is not valid for you to cite any of his statements as an argument, based on this opinion. Nonetheless, we point out that his words match one another - praise be to Allah - and confirm the words of the prophets before him, and that the words of all the prophets are compatible with sound reason. Nothing is contradictory in the truth known through hearing or reasoning.
[Response to the first aspect] [24]
[25] As the foregoing has been known, we, thereafter, say: It is common knowledge among all those who are aware of his conditions - and through mass transmission, which is more authentic than the transmission about Moses, Jesus, and others, and through the Qur’an, mass transmitted from him, his Sunnah, mass transmitted from him, and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Caliphs after him - that he mentioned that he was sent to the People of the Book, i.e., the Jews and the Christians, and he mentioned that he was sent to those who have no scripture, and he even mentioned that he was sent to all the children of Adam, Arabs and non-Arabs, including the Romans, the Persians, the Turks, the Indians, the Barbarians, the Abyssinians, and all nations. Rather, he was sent to both humankind and jinn, all of them.
These are all apparent and mass transmitted from him. His Companions who were large in number and lived in various places and through different conditions, were in agreement over the transmission of these. The Companions numbered tens of thousands, and their exact number is only known to Allah Almighty. And the succeeding generation transmitted this from them, and they were many times greater in number than the Companions.
Moreover, this was transmitted from one generation to another, until this time of ours, since Muslims have been great in number, spreading in different corners of the world. He (ﷺ) mentioned this before it came to pass. In an authentic Hadīth, he (ﷺ) said: "The corners of the earth were brought together before me; so, I saw its eastern and western parts. The dominion of my Ummah will definitely reach as far as what was brought together before me." [26]
The bottom line here is that Muhammad (ﷺ) himself called the People of the Book - the Jews and the Christians - to believe in him and in what he came with, as he called those who had no scripture, among the Arabs and all other nations.
And he is the one who conveyed that Allah Almighty declared as disbelievers those who do not believe in him, among the People of the Book and others, and that they will enter Hellfire - what a terrible destination! Also, he is the one who ordered jihad against them. He called them by himself and through his representatives.
So, regarding their statement in the book, "he was not sent to us, but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah" [27], whether they meant that Allah sent him to the Arabs and not to them, or that he claimed to have been sent to the Arabs and not to them. Indeed, all different people knew that Muhammad (ﷺ) called the Jews and the Christians to believe in him, and he mentioned that Allah sent him to them and commanded him to conduct jihad against those of them who do not believe in him.
If it were said, nonetheless, that he said, "I was not sent but to the Arabs," this would be an obvious lie about him, whether one believes it or not. Indeed, the intended meaning here is that he himself called all the people of the world to believe in him. He called [to Islam] the People of the Book as he called the illiterates.
[28] As for the Jews, they were his neighbors in the Hejaz region, in Madīnah, in the surrounding area, as well as in Khaybar. The Muhājirūn (Immigrants) and the Ansār (Helpers) did all believe in him without coercion or fight. They believed in him after seeing the proofs of his prophethood and the signs of his truthfulness. Those who believed in Allah suffered such harm for Allah's sake as known in the books of biography.
A vast number of Jews and Christians believed in him during his lifetime, some in Makkah and some in Madīnah, and many of them were from places other than Makkah and Madīnah. When he came to Madīnah, he struck a covenant with those Jews who did not believe in him. As they subsequently breached the covenant, he expelled some of them and killed some, for they fought Allah and His Messenger. He fought them a number of times:
[29] He fought Banu an-Nadīr about whom Allah Almighty revealed Surat al-Hashr.
He fought Banu Qurayzah during the year of the Confederates, and Allah mentions them in Surat al-Ahzāb.
Prior to that, he fought Banu Qaynuqā‘.
After them, he fought at the battle of Khaybar, along with those who gave the Ridwān pledge of allegiance under the tree, who were 1400. Allah gave them victory at Khaybar and revealed Surah al-Fat'h in relation to this.
Then, how can it be said that he stated that he was not sent except to the Arab pagans, when this was his situation with the Jews?!
[30] As for the Christians, the people of Najrān in Yemen were Christians, and a delegation from them, consisting of sixty riders, came to him, and he held a debate with them in his mosque. Allah revealed the first verses of Surat Āl ‘Imrān regarding them. When his arguments prevailed over them, and it became clear to them that he is the Messenger of Allah to them, Allah commanded him to call them for mubāhala (invocation of Allah's curse), if they did not respond to him. Allah Almighty says: {Whoever disputes with you concerning him [Jesus] after the knowledge has come to you, then say: "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 61] When he called them for mubāhala, they asked him to give them a respite for consultations. They said to one another: "You know that he is a prophet, and no people engaged in mubāhala against a prophet except that punishment was inflicted upon them. Excuse yourselves from mubāhala." So, they became reconciled with him and agreed to pay him the tribute willingly while they were humbled, as they feared his invocation, given their knowledge that he was a prophet.
So, they came under his authority, as the people of dhimmah (non-Muslims living in a Muslim land and given protection) come under the authority of Allah and His Messenger, and paid him the tribute, willingly while they were humbled. They were the first among the Christians to pay the tribute.
He (ﷺ) put ‘Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansāri in charge of them and those of them who embraced Islam and sent him a famous letter wherein he outlined the laws of religion [31]. So, they lived under the protection of Muslims and the authority of Allah and His Messenger and His Messenger's representative, ‘Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansāri (may Allah be pleased with him).
Their story is famous and mass transmitted. It was narrated by the biographers and exegetes of the Qur’an, scholars of Hadīth and jurisprudence, and the origin of their Hadīth is known in the Sahīh Collections and Sunan [32].
In "At-Tabaqāt", Muhammad ibn Sa‘d mentioned their coming as part of the talk about the delegations. He related, with his isnād (chain of transmission), that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a letter to the people of Najrān. In response, fourteen of their notables, Christians, went to him. Three of them were in charge of their journey, namely Al-‘Āqib, Abu al-Hārith, and As-Sayyid. They entered the mosque wearing hibarah garments (a certain type of adorned clothing made of cotton or linen) with silk hems. They stood to pray in the mosque towards the east. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Leave them." Then, they came to the Prophet (ﷺ) who turned his face away from them and did not talk to them. ‘Uthmān said to them: This is because of your clothing. This is the reading of (‘Ala) with light pronunciation. The majority of the reciters read the Qur’an according to this reading, except for Nāfi‘. See: As-Sab‘ah by Ibn Mujāhid (p. 287). This is the reading of (‘Alayya) with stressing Yā’. Nāfi‘ read it according to this reading. See: As-Sab‘ah by Ibn Mujāhid (p. 287).
They left on that day, and the next morning, they came to him with the clothing of monks. They greeted him, and he returned their greeting and called them to Islam. They refused, and there was much talk and argumentation among them. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) recited verses of the Qur’an to them and said: "If you deny what I say, then let us engage in mubāhala." See also: [Surat an-Nahl: 101-102], and [Surat Yūnus: 15].
They departed at that point. On the next morning, ‘Abdul-Masīh and two sound-minded men among them went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: We have reached a decision not to engage in mubāhala with you. So, pass the ruling you like regarding us, and we will give you and reach a reconciliation with you. Because there is one of the two possibilities: The Messenger (ﷺ) is either truthful in all what he said, in which case he would have come with a religion different from the religion of Christians; hence, his truthfulness entails the falsity of their religion; or the Messenger (ﷺ) is untruthful, which entails the invalidity of their use of any of his statements as an argument. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/54-55).
He reconciled with them in return for two thousand garments to be delivered in the month of Rajab and one thousand in Safar, or the value of each garment in ounces, and that they should lend them thirty shields, thirty spears, thirty camels, and thirty horses, in case there was plotting against them in Yemen. And Najran and their people would enjoy the protection of Allah Almighty and His Messenger (ﷺ) regarding their lives, their religion, their land, their property, their absent and their present, and their churches, where no bishop, monk, or devotee shall be removed from their designated places. He called witnesses to this agreement, among whom were: Abu Sufyān ibn Harb, Al-Aqra‘ ibn Hābis, and Al-Mughīrah ibn Shu‘bah.
They returned to their tribe, and before long, As-Sayyid and Al-‘Āqib went back to the Prophet (ﷺ) and converted to Islam, and he lodged them at the house of Abu Ayyūb al-Ansāri.
The people of Najrān continued to abide by the agreement with the Prophet (ﷺ) until he passed away - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him [33].
[34] And Negus, the Abyssinian king, who was a Christian, and so were his people, embraced Islam, and his belief was at the early stage of the Prophet's (ﷺ) mission, when his Companions were weak and helpless in Makkah, and the pagans would oppress, harm, and punish them for their belief in Allah and His Messenger. This led a group of them to immigrate to him, including ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān, ‘Abdur-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, Az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd, and Ja‘far ibn Abi Tālib, as well as others, men and women.
He was a just king. The disbelievers sent messengers behind them to the land of Abyssinia, the land of Negus, with gifts, so that he might hand them over to them. Acting justly, he did not hand them over until he heard what they had to say. When he heard their speech and what they said about the Prophet's matter, he believed in him and gave them protection.
When he heard the Qur’an, he said: "Indeed, this and what Moses came with come out of one lamp." When he asked them about their opinion regarding Jesus (peace be upon him), they said: "We bear witness that he is the servant and Messenger of Allah and His word which He threw to the virgin and chaste Mary, who was not touched by any man." Thereupon, Negus said to Ja‘far ibn Abi Tālib: "By Allah, Jesus, son of Mary, said nothing beyond what you have said the size of this stick." Whereupon his companions snored. He said: "Even if you snore, even if you snore." [35].
He sent his son and a group of his companions to the Prophet ﷺ, along with Ja‘far ibn Abi Tālib. Ja‘far came to the Prophet (ﷺ) in the year of the battle of Khaybar.
Their story was mentioned by a number of scholars and Hadīth experts, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Al-Musnad, Ibn Sa‘d in At-Tabaqāt, and Abu Nu‘īm in Al-Hilyah, as well as others. It was also related by the exegetes of the Qur’an and scholars of Hadīth and fiqh. In fact, it was mass transmitted among the scholars. See the response to the second aspect (p. 85).
[36] As Allah Almighty sent down to him the first revelation, his wife Khadījah raised his matter with a prominent Christian scholar called Waraqah ibn Nawfal. He was one of the Arab Christian converts. He said: "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to Moses ibn ‘Imrān. I wish I would be young when your people drive you out." He was an old man who lost his eyesight. Thereupon, the Prophet ﷺ asked him: "Will they drive me out?" He said: "Yes, no one came with the same as you have come with except that he faced hostility. If I should live until that day, I would support you strongly." [37]. Marginal remark/ First, it was mass transmitted from the Messenger (ﷺ) that he was sent to both humankind and jinn.
[38] A group of Christians came to him in Makkah and believed in him. As a result, the polytheists harmed them, and they displayed patience and endured their harm. So, Allah revealed those verses regarding them: {As for those whom We gave the Scripture before this [Qur’an], they do believe in it. When this [Qur’an] is recited to them, they say: "We believe in it, for it is the truth from our Lord. We had already submitted [as Muslims even] before this." They will be given their reward twice for their patience, repelling evil with good, and for spending out of what We have provided for them. When they hear vain talk, they turn away from it and say: "We are accountable for our deeds and you for yours. Peace [is our response] to you! We do not want [to be with] the ignorant."} [Surat al-Qasas: 52-55]
In Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah Wa A‘lām Ar-Risālah, Al-Bayhaqi reported Ibn Is'hāq as saying: "Then, twenty Christian men or so came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while he was in Makkah, after his news prevailed in Abyssinia. They found him in a gathering. They talked to him and posed questions to him, when some men from Quraysh were in their gatherings around the Ka‘bah. After they finished their questions with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he called them to Allah and recited verses of the Qur’an to them. When they listened, they shed tears. Then, they accepted his call, believed in him, and testified to him. They recognized what had been described to them in their Book about his matter. After they left his gathering, Abu Jahl and a group from the Quraysh intercepted them and said: 'May Allah disappoint this convoy of yours! Your fellows sent you on this journey to bring news about this man, and as you sat with him for a little while, you departed your religion and believed in what he told you. We do not know a convoy more foolish than you - or he said something similar.' To this, they replied: 'Peace be upon you. We do not behave ignorantly with you. We have our deeds, and you have yours. We seek nothing for ourselves but good.' It is said, and Allah knows best, that the following verses were revealed about them: {As for those whom We gave the Scripture before this [Qur’an], they do believe in it.} To the verse: {"We do not want [to be with] the ignorant."} [39] [Surat al-Qasas: 52-55] Narrated by Muslim (2889).
[40] After the year of the Hudaybiyah Treaty with the Quraysh, the Messenger ﷺ sent his emissaries to all groups - to the Christians, the Christians of Egypt and the Levant, and to Heraclius, the Roman King.
At the time, Heraclius had walked from Homs to Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) in thanks and gratitude to Allah for giving him victory over the Persians. So, the Prophet's letter reached him, in which he invited him to Islam, following his victory over Persia. The Prophet ﷺ and the believers with him were glad about their victory.
The Biography scholars said: When the Romans achieved victory, Heraclius, the Roman King, went out, from his house in Homs, and walked on foot to Jerusalem, in gratitude to Allah Almighty for what He restored to him, and to pray therein. As he reached Jerusalem and prayed in it, the Messenger's (ﷺ) letter reached him with Dihyah al-Kalbi, inviting him to Islam. The Epistle of Monk Paul of Antioch (p. 414).
Ibn ‘Abbās reported: Abu Sufyān related to me: We were people of trade. The war between us and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) constrained us until our wealth was badly ruined. When the treaty was signed between us and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) - i.e., the Hudaybiyah Treaty - we felt safe. So, I went out with a group of Quraysh for doing business in the Levant. This was our trade destination. I went there as Heraclius gained victory over those who opposed him [41] in Persia. He drove them out of it, and his Grand Cross, which they had taken away from him, was seized for him. When news reached him about them and that his cross was restored for him, he left Homs, where he stayed, walking on foot to show gratitude to Allah Almighty for what He restored to him and to pray in Jerusalem. He was welcomed with carpets spread for him and with basil leaves thrown at him. When he arrived in Eliyā’ (Bait al-Maqdis) and offered his prayer there along with his Roman patriarchs and bishops, the Messenger's letter reached him with Dihyah ibn Khalīfah al-Kalbi, which reads: "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Heraclius, the premier of Romans. Peace be upon those who follow guidance! To proceed, embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam, Allah will give you a double reward. But if you turn away, then upon you will be the sin of the peasants." [42].
Ibn Is'hāq said: Heraclius took the Messenger's letter and put it in a golden pipe and kept it with himself, in reverence for him [43]. Marginal remark/ The indications of his call to the People of the Book.
[44] The Prophet (ﷺ) sent an emissary to the Egyptian King Al-Muqawqis, the ruler of the Christians at the time in Alexandria. The Prophet's emissary to him was Hātib ibn Abi Balta‘ah (may Allah be pleased with him).
Hātib related: I went to Al-Muqawqis - whose name was Jurayj ibn Mīna - with the Messenger of Allah's letter and said to him: There was a man before you who claimed to be the Exalted Lord, so Allah seized him with an exemplary punishment in this life and in the Hereafter, and He took revenge through him and then took revenge from him. So, take a lesson from others' examples and do not be an example for others. He said: Give it to me. I said: Indeed, you have a religion which you would not abandon except to convert to a better one; that is Islam, which suffices all else. This Prophet called people to Allah, and as a result, the harshest among all towards him were the Quraysh, the most hostile to him were the Jews, and the closest to him were the Christians. By my life, the glad tidings by Moses about Jesus is just like the glad tidings by Jesus about Muhammad, and our call to you to the Qur’an is no different from your call to the people of the Torah to the Gospel. Whoever lives at the time of a prophet becomes one of his community and should obey him. You are one of those living at the time of this prophet, and we are not prohibiting you from the religion of Jesus; rather, we enjoin you to adhere to it. The Prophet's (ﷺ) fighting against the Jews
Then, he gave him the Messenger's letter. When he read it, he said: Well, I have looked into this and found that it does not enjoin anything reprehensible or prohibit anything commendable, and I have not found him a misleading magician or a lying monk. Then, he placed the letter in an ivory box, sealed the box and gave it to his treasurer. He wrote his response to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): I know that a prophet is remaining, and I have honored your emissary.
He sent as a gift to the Prophet (ﷺ) two slave girls and a mule called Ad-Duldul. The Prophet (ﷺ) accepted the gift and chose one slave girl, Māriyah the Copt, for himself, who gave birth to Ibrāhīm, and gave the other to Hassān ibn Thābit, and she gave birth to ‘Abdur-Rahmān. The mule lived until the time of Mu‘āwiyah. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The wicked man feared for his kingdom, and his kingdom will not last" [45].
Both kings [46] held the Prophet's matter in high regard, showed modesty to him and his letter, and acknowledged that he was the awaited Messenger about whom the previous prophets (peace be upon them) had given glad tidings.
Al-Muqawqis knew he was a true Messenger from his traits about which he had heard from the People of the Book, yet he feared for his kingdom and did not believe. Al-Mughīrah, before converting to Islam, traveled to him and he told him about this [47].
[48] Then, after sending letters to the kings, he ﷺ began to engage in battles against the Christians. He first sent Zayd ibn Hārithah, Ja‘far ibn Abi Tālib, and ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāha with an army to fight the Christians at Mu’tah, in the land of Karak [49]. He said to his Companions: "Your commander is Zayd. If he gets killed, then Ja‘far; if he gets killed, then ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāha." [50] The three of them were killed. The Prophet ﷺ announced their death on the day they were killed and reported that Khāled ibn al-Walīd took the flag, and Allah granted victory at his hands [51]. Marginal remark/ The debate with the Najrān Christians
Thereafter, he himself raided the Christians and ordered all Muslims to join the battle, not giving permission to anyone to lag behind. With an army of tens of thousands, he went to Tabuk and stayed there for 20 nights [52] to raid the Christians, who were Arabs, Romans, and others. He set up a camp and waited to fight them, but they heard about his plan and refrained from fighting him.
Allah Almighty revealed most of Surat Barā’ah (At-Tawbah) in relation to this issue, and He Almighty harshly dispraised those who failed to participate in jihad against the Christians. And those who did not consider jihad against them as an act of worship, He regarded them as hypocrites and disbelievers, whom Allah would not forgive unless they repented. Allah Almighty said to His Prophet ﷺ: {It is the same to them whether you seek forgiveness for them or not, Allah will never forgive them.} [Surat al-Munāfiqūn: 6]. Allah Almighty also says: {Never offer the funeral prayer for any of them who dies, nor stand by his grave.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 84] See: Muwatta’ Mālik (3139), Sahīh Ibn Hibbān (6559), and Mustadrak Al-Hākim (1450).
If this is the ruling of Allah and His Messenger regarding those who fail to participate in jihad against them, if they do not consider it as an act of worship or a duty, then what could possibly be His ruling regarding those people themselves? Allah Almighty says: {Say: "If your parents, your children, your brothers, your spouses, your clan, the wealth you have acquired, the trade you fear to decline, and the homes you cherish – [if these] are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His decree."} [Surat at-Tawbah: 24] See Sahīh Al-Bukhāri (3745 - 7254), Sahīh Muslim (2420), Tafsīr At-Tabari (5/174), and Al-Muntazim by Ibn Al-Jawzi (3/379-384).
[53] Shortly prior to his death, he ﷺ ordered that the Jews and Christians be driven out of the Arabian Peninsula.
In Sahīh Muslim, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb reported that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say: "I will definitely drive the Jews and Christians out of the Arabian Peninsula until I leave none (therein) but Muslims" [54].
Imām Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd narrated that Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrāh (may Allah be pleased with him) said: In his last statement, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Drive the Jews of the people of Hejaz and the Christians of the people of Najrān out of the Arabian Peninsula" [55].
[56] His caliphs continued to uphold his religion after him ﷺ. Abu Bakr sent armies to invade the Christians in the Levant, with several battles taking place between the Muslims and them. Abu Bakr died while they were laying siege to Damascus.
Then, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb assumed the Caliphate, and most of the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and parts of Khorasan were conquered during his rule. He went to the Levant during his caliphate, and the Christians handed over to him Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), as they recognized his description mentioned in their Books [57].
[58] Muslim narrated, on the authority of Anas, that the Prophet ﷺ sent letters to Khosrau, Caesar, and Negus and every despot, calling them to Allah Almighty [59]. This is not Negus about whose death he told his Companions on the very day he died, and he took them to the praying place, arranged them in rows, and offered prayer for him. But he was another Negus who assumed the monarchy after him. At-Tabaqāt Al-Kubra (1/292).
Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "I have been given superiority over the prophets in six respects: I have been gifted with concise words but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by horror; spoils have been made lawful to me; the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all humankind; and the line of prophets is sealed with me." Marginal remark/ Negus coming to faith
The Prophet (ﷺ) also said: "Each prophet would be specifically sent to his people, and I have been sent to all people" [61].
The Qur’an contains so many calls [to guidance] that can hardly be counted to the People of the Book, i.e., the Jews and the Christians, the polytheists, the idol worshipers, and all humankind and jinn. This is all deemed common knowledge in the religion of Islam. Then, how can it be said that he did not state that he was sent but specifically to the Arabs, whereas this is his call, emissaries, and jihad against the Jews, the Christians, and the Magi, after the polytheists, and these are the events of his life (ﷺ) with them? Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (1764).
Also, the mass-transmitted book from him, namely the Qur’an, mentions, in so many places, his call to the People of the Book to believe in him, and Allah Almighty even describes as disbelievers those Jews and Christians who disbelieve and commands to fight them. Allah Almighty says: {Those who say, "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary," have certainly disbelieved.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17] In the same chapter, Allah Almighty says: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73]
Allah Almighty also says: {The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah." These are mere words that they utter, imitating the words of the disbelievers before them. May Allah ruin them; how can they be deluded?} [Surat at-Tawbah: 30]
These proofs and so many others point out that he ﷺ himself stated that he is the Messenger of Allah to the Christians and others among the People of the Book and that he called them, engaged in jihad against them, and enjoined Muslims to call them and conduct jihad against them. What his Ummah did after him was not something they newly introduced to the religion, as the Christians did after the Messiah (peace be upon him). Muslims do not deem it permissible for anyone after Muhammad ﷺ to change anything of the Shariah. So, no one can change anything he declared as unlawful into a lawful one or vice versa, or turn anything he declared as non-obligatory into an obligation or abrogate something he set as an obligation. Lawful things, to them, are those things declared as lawful by Allah and His Messenger, and unlawful things are those things declared as unlawful by Allah and His Messenger. The religion is what Allah and His Messenger laid down and legislated - unlike the Christians, who created innovations in religion after the Messiah (peace be upon him) that were not legislated by him or mentioned in the Gospels or the scriptures of the previous prophets. They allege that what their leaders legislate in religion is approved by Jesus. Marginal remark/ Waraqah ibn Nawfal coming to faith Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (3) and Muslim (160).
[62] The belief held by Muslims is that Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent as a Messenger to both humankind and jinn, including the People of the Book and others, and that whoever does not believe in him is a disbeliever and deserves the punishment of Allah and is subject to conduct jihad against. This is unanimously agreed by the believers in Allah and His Messenger. Indeed, this is what the Prophet (ﷺ) came with, Allah Almighty mentions it in His Book, and the Messenger (ﷺ) clarified it in the Wisdom (i.e., Sunnah) sent down to him beside the Qur’an. Allah Almighty sent down to him the Book and Wisdom, and the Muslims did not newly introduce anything of that to the religion on their own accord, as the Christians innovated many aspects of their religion, rather most of it, and altered and changed the religion of Jesus. Marginal remark/ A group of Christians in Makkah coming to faith
Hence, the disbelief of Christians when Muhammad ﷺ was sent is like the disbelief of Jews when Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent. The Jews had changed the Law of the Torah before the coming of Jesus, which made them disbelievers, and when the Messiah was sent to them, they denied him, thus becoming disbelievers: Dalā'il An-Nubuwwah by Al-Bayhaqi (2/306-307).
By changing the meanings and rulings of the first Scripture. Marginal remark/ The Prophet's correspondence with the Levant Christians
And by denying the second Scripture.
Likewise, the Christians had changed the religion of the Messiah before Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent, innovating the dogma of the trinity and unity, and altering the Law of the Gospel - things with which Jesus (peace be upon him) was not sent; rather, they contradict the religion he was sent with. In this, they dispersed into several denominations and considered one another as disbelievers. And when Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent, they denied him, thus becoming disbelievers:
By changing the meanings and rulings of the first Scripture. It is mentioned with this wording "those who opposed him" in Mu‘jam At-Tabarāni Al-Kabīr (8/19), No. (7271); in Tarikh At-Tabari, it is mentioned with this wording: "When Heraclius achieved victory over those who were in his land from Persia". See: Tarīkh Al-Umam Wa Al-Mulūk (2/646). Al-Bayhaqi narrated it with this wording: "When Caesar, the Roman ruler, achieved victory over those who were in his land from Persia". See: Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah by Al-Bayhaqi (4/381). It was narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah (4/381). The original story is found in the Two Sahīh Collections, as it was narrated by Al-Bukhari (7), (4553) and Muslim (1773).
And by denying the second Scripture. See: Ar-Rawd Al-’Unuf (7/365).
Nonetheless, a minority of Christians at the time of the Prophet's (ﷺ) mission were holding onto the religion of the Messiah as it had originally been, without changing it. This is like the case of those who were following the Law of the Torah when Jesus was sent and were holding onto the true religion like all the other followers of Moses; yet, when Jesus was sent, anyone who did not believe in him became a disbeliever. Similarly, when Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent, anyone who did not believe in him became a disbeliever. Marginal remark/ The Prophet's (ﷺ) correspondence with Egypt's Christians
The bottom line here is demonstrating the universal nature of Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission and that he himself said that Allah Almighty sent him to the People of the Book and others, and that he himself called the People of the Book and conducted jihad against them and ordered Muslims to do the same.
So, after all this, whoever among the People of the Book says that "he was not sent to us" - in other words, he did not say that "he was sent to us" - is arrogantly denying the clear truth and fabricating a clear lie about the Messenger that is obvious to everyone; and his denial of this is like denying the fact that he ﷺ came with the Qur’an or prescribed the five prayers, the fasting of Ramadan, and Hajj to the Sacred House.
Denial of Muhammad (ﷺ) and what was mass-transmitted from him are more grave than the denial by the disciples' followers of the Messiah (peace be upon him) and that he sent them to the communities and that he came with the Gospel, and that Moses came with the Torah (peace be upon him), and denial that he used to observe the Sabbath days [63]. Indeed, transmitting from Muhammad (ﷺ) occurred within a short period of time, and the narrators from him are many many many times greater in number than those who transmitted the religion of the Messiah from him, and many many many times greater in number than those who transmitted the religion of Moses (peace be upon him). The Ummah of Muhammad ﷺ is still very numerous and spread all over the globe. There are among them those who are still dominant with the religion and have prevailed over the enemies - unlike the Children of Israel, whose dominion did vanish in the process, when Jerusalem was ruined for the first time after David (peace be upon him), and those who transmitted their religion decreased in number, to the extent that it was said: No one remains who has memorized the Torah, except one person. See: Ar-Rawd Al-’Unuf (7/517-518).
Only a small number of people transmitted the religion of the Messiah (peace be upon him) from him. The Christians, however, allege that they were infallible messengers of Allah, like Abraham and Moses. We will address this topic, Allah Willing, when we reach it. The purpose here is to point out that whoever claims that Muhammad (ﷺ) used to say that "he was not sent except to the Arab polytheists" is in utter ignorance and misguidance or in utter arrogance and obstinacy. Such are more ignorant and obstinate than those who deny that he used to enjoin purification and removal of sexual impurity, prohibited wine and swine. And they are more ignorant and obstinate than those who deny what is mass-transmitted about Jesus and Moses (peace be upon both of them). This reveals the falsity of their statement: "We came to know that he was not sent to us, but to the Arabs of jāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance)." Heraclius, and Al-Muqawqis.
[The Christians' use of the Qur’an as argument]
As Al-Muqawqis and Al-Mughīrah talked, Al-Mughīrah told him about the Prophet's (ﷺ) call to worshiping Allah Almighty and abandoning the polytheism and idol worship of their forefathers, and that he enjoined prayers at certain times, Zakah as a specific due share to the poor, upholding kinship ties, and fulfilling promises, and prohibited adultery, alcoholic drinking, and consumption of carrion. So, Al-Muqawqis acknowledged that Muhammad (ﷺ) is a Prophet sent by Allah, and that Jesus (peace be upon him) gave glad tidings about his coming and commanded that he be followed. When Al-Mughīrah heard this, it had a particular impact on him. So, he began to go about between churches and bishops asking them about the description of Muhammad (ﷺ). He was told about his exact traits: that he is not tall nor short, not white nor black, and that he will come out of the sacred place and immigrate to a land of palm trees, and that he is the last Prophet and Allah made the land for him a means of purification and a place of worship, etc. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/146-149).
Those Christians' use of the verses which they thought prove that he was a Prophet specifically to the Arabs indicates that it does not befit them to cite for argument the speech of anyone according to what he has intended, and that they are among those whom the verse describes, saying: {What is wrong with these people that they hardly understand any word?} [Surat an-Nisā’: 78] So, it does not befit them to cite for argument anything of the Torah, the Gospel, or the Psalms, as intended by the prophets, or all the words transmitted from the prophets (peace be upon them) as intended by them. They cannot even cite for argument the statements of physicians, philosophers, grammarians, or mathematicians according to their intent. Marginal remark/ The Prophet's (ﷺ) battles against the Christians A city in east Jordan whose mountains overlook the Dead Sea. Mu’tah, a small town, lies 11 miles away to its south. See: Al-Ma‘ālim Al-Athīrah by Muhammad Hasan Sharāb (p. 237). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (4261). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (1215).
All people agree that Arabic is one of the most eloquent and sound languages spoken by humans. They also agree that the Qur’an is at the climax of diction, rhetoric, and eloquence, and therein are numerous indications to be easily counted of the Prophet's (ﷺ) intent, as he stated that Allah Almighty sent him to the People of the Book and others. Besides, there are mass-transmitted reports about his biography in which he (ﷺ) called the People of the Book to Islam and asked them to believe in him and he conducted jihad against those of them who disbelieved. These reports are known to everyone who has the least knowledge of the Prophet's (ﷺ) biography, and the news of these incidents have widely circulated throughout the world, and everyone everywhere heard about them. Narrated by Ibn Hibbān (2749) and Abu Dāwūd (1235).
If all people, both the believers and disbelievers in him, knew that he said, "I am the Messenger of Allah to the People of the Book and others," and the meaning he intended from this was common knowledge to everyone, the elite and ordinary persons, and then they began to think that he said, "I was not sent except to the Arabs," and continued to say this until he died. This shows their corrupt thinking and reason or their obstinacy and unreasonable contention.
Since they did not know the meanings of these verses which they cited as a proof for the exclusiveness of his message, they should have thought one of two things:
These verses either have meanings that accord with what he (ﷺ) used to say. Marginal remark/ Shortly prior to his death, he (ﷺ) commanded that the People of the Book be driven out of the Arabian Peninsula.
Or they are among the abrogated verses. Narrated by Muslim (1767).
Everyone, the elite and ordinary, knew that Muhammad ﷺ used to pray to the direction of Jerusalem for nearly a year and a half, after which he was commanded to pray towards the Ka‘bah, the Sacred House. The Christians agree that the legislations of the prophets include abrogating and abrogated ones, even though the verses they cited were not abrogated. Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (1713) and Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwāl (p.129).
The bottom line here is that knowledge about the Prophet's life and conditions is common, certain, and mass transmitted in a way that cannot be rejected. The fact that he used to say "I am the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to all humankind" is known to everyone familiar with his life and biography, whether he believed him or denied him. Knowledge that he used to say, "I am the Messenger of Allah to all humankind," is possible before knowing whether he was a Prophet or not, and knowledge about his prophethood is possible before knowing that his message is universal. Indeed, knowing one of these two is not contingent upon the other. Therefore, many of those who disbelieved him knew that he used to say, "I am the Messenger of Allah to all humankind," whereas some of those who acknowledged his prophethood and truthfulness did not acknowledge that he is a Messenger to all humanity. Marginal remark/ His Caliphs conducted jihad against the Christians
The bottom line here is to tell them that it is mass transmitted and regarded as common knowledge that his mission was for all people - the People of the Book and others - just like knowledge that his very mission and call to the people to believe in him and obey him, and like his immigration from Makkah to Madīnah, his coming with this Qur’an, the five prayers, the fasting of the month of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to the Ancient House, enjoining truthfulness and justice, prohibiting oppression and immoralities, as well as other teachings Muhammad (ﷺ) came with. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) mentioned here the conditions set by ‘Umar for reaching a treaty with the Christians of the Levant. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/154-157).
[64] If it is said: Rather, there are verses in the Qur’an that entail the exclusiveness of his message and other verses that point to its universality, which are contradictory. Marginal remark/ Second: The proofs of the universality of the Prophet's (ﷺ) mission Narrated by Muslim (1774).
We reply: This is false, and its falsity can be known before knowing his prophethood, as all people, the believers, and disbelievers in him, knew that he was among the greatest people in terms of thinking, policy, and experience, and his intent was to call people to obey and follow him; and that he used to recite this Qur’an to all people and command that it be conveyed to all communities. And if anyone among the disbelievers asked him for protection until he recited the Qur’an to him, it was incumbent upon him to agree to that, even if he was a polytheist; then, what about the People of the Book? Allah Almighty says: {If any of the polytheists asks you for protection, give it to him, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, then escort him to his place of safety; that is because they are a people who do not know.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 6] He proclaimed that he was sent to the People of the Book and all people, and that he was a Messenger to both humankind and jinn. This makes it impossible for him to proclaim anything else that indicates he was not sent to them. A person with the lowest degree of reason would not do this, for it contradicts his very intent. So, how could it be done by someone who is considered by all rational people to be the best one in terms of reason, policy, and legislation? Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (335) and Muslim (523).
Also, his Companions and those who fought with him against his enemies would support him. They used to be doubtful about matters less than that, but no one was doubtful about this. Moreover, if the Qur’an happens to contain verses indicating that he was not sent except to the Arabs and other verses that say he was sent to all people, this proves that he was sent to other people after he was earlier not sent except to them, and that Allah made his mission general after it had been specific. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (335).
There is no contradiction between this and that. Despite this, there is no single verse in the Qur’an saying that he was exclusively sent to the Arabs, yet the Qur’an only establishes that he was sent to them, just as it establishes that he was sent to the Quraysh - and there is no contradiction in that.
It also establishes his mission to the People of the Book, as Allah Almighty says: {O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down [to Muhammad].} [Surat an-Nisā’: 47] And it establishes his mission to the Children of Israel. Allah Almighty says: {O Children of Israel.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 40] This specific address to the Jews does not contradict the universal nature of the mission.
In his message, he sometimes addresses the Jews and at other times the Christians, and his address and call to one of these two groups does not contradict his address and call to the other.
And his Book includes words addressed to those who have believed within his Ummah as he calls them to the laws of his religion. This has no contradiction with his speech and call to the People of the Book.
Also in his Book, Allah Almighty commands Muslims to fight the Christians, the People of the Book, until they pay the tribute, willingly while they are humbled. Allah Almighty says: {Fight those of the People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor do they consider forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor adopt the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the protection tax willingly while they are humbled.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 29] This does not mean that He does not command Muslims to fight others, like the Jews and the Magi, until they pay the tribute, willingly while they are humbled. Rather, this ruling also applies to the Magi, as established by his Sunnah and the consensus among his Ummah, though it may be said: They are not from People of the Book. A side remark / Third: The consensus among Muslims that the Prophet ﷺ called Christians to his religion.
This is all deemed common knowledge in his religion even before knowing about his prophethood; then what if we acknowledge his prophethood, as a prophet does not contradict himself?!
[Response to the Christians' use of the Qur’an for argument]
[The first proof]
They used as an argument the verse that reads: {Just as We have sent you a messenger from among you, reciting to you Our verses.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 151] And the verse that reads: {Allah has conferred favor on the believers when He sent them a messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 164] This is similar to the verse that reads: {There has come to you a Messenger from among yourselves; he is grieved by your suffering, and is concerned for you, and is gracious and merciful towards the believers.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 128]
The generality of this discourse is subject to debate [65]:
It is either addressed to all people, in which case it means: We have sent to you a human messenger, as you would not be able to communicate with an angel. So, Allah conferred His favor upon you by sending you a human messenger. Allah Almighty says: {They say: Why has no angel been sent down to him? If We did send down an angel, the matter would have been decided and then they would not be given any respite. And if We had made him an angel, We would have surely made him [appear as] a man, and We would have caused them confusion just as they are confused.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 8-9]
Or it is addressed to the Arabs.
Based on either estimate, His mention of His favor upon those addressed by sending them a Messenger from amongst themselves does not contradict the fact that he was sent to others. If the speech was addressed to all humankind, he ﷺ was still a Messenger to the jinn as well, even though he was not one of them. So, how could His discourse to the Arabs and mention of His favor upon them contradict the fact that He also bestowed this favor upon others?!
Non-Arabs are closer to the Arabs than the jinn are to humans. Allah Almighty mentions in His Glorious Book that when the jinn heard the Qur’an, they believed in it. Allah Almighty says: {And [remember] when We sent to you a group of jinn to listen to the Qur’an. When they heard it, they said [to one another]: "Listen attentively." Then when it was over, they returned to their people as warners. They said: "O our people, we have heard a scripture that has been sent down after Moses, confirming what came before it; it guides to the truth and to a straight path. O our people, respond to the one who is calling to Allah, and believe in him; He will forgive some of your sins and protect you from a painful punishment. And whoever does not respond to the one who is calling to Allah will have no escape on earth."} [66] [Surat al-Ahqāf: 29-32]
On the other hand, another verse says: {Indeed, this [Qur’an] is a reminder for you and your people.} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 44] His people were the Quraysh, and this does not prevent it from being a reminder to the rest of the Arabs, and indeed to all other people. Allah Almighty says: {The disbelievers would almost strike you down with their malicious gazes when they hear the Reminder, and they say: "He is certainly mad." But it is nothing other than a reminder to the whole world.} [67] [Surat al-Qalam: 51-52] It means: Refraining from work on Saturday, as Allah forbade them from doing anything on Saturday except for worship, as an affliction and test. See: Tafsīr As-Sam‘āni (2/225), Tafsīr Al-Qāsimi (5/209), and Tafsīr Al-Marāghi (9/93). In the Book of Exodus, Chapter 31, it reads: "Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be uprooted from their people. [15] For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of Sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death." The same meaning also occurs in the Book of Exodus (35:2-3) and in the Book of Numbers (15:32-36).
This is based on the more sound of the two opinions, and that the verse that reads: {Indeed, this [Qur’an] is a reminder for you and your people.} means that it is a reminder for them so that they may be guided thereby.
It was also said that it is an honor for them, which it is not. In fact, the Qur’an is an honor for those who believe in it, including the Prophet's people and others; it is not an honor for his people as a whole. Rather, those of them who disbelieved in it were worthier of dispraise, as Allah Almighty says: {May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and may he perish!} [Surat al-Masad: 1] Allah Almighty also says: {But your people [O Prophet] have rejected this [Qur’an] although it is the truth.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 66]
It is a reminder for them and others. Allah Almighty says: {Say: "I do not ask any reward for it. It is but a reminder for the worlds."} [Surat al-An‘ām: 90] Including all the worlds, Allah Almighty says: {You are not asking them for any reward. It is only a reminder to the worlds.} [Surat Yūsuf: 104]
[The second proof]
Regarding the verse that reads: {We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an so that you may understand.} [Surat Yūsuf: 2] And the verse that reads: {If We had made it a non-Arabic Qur’an, they would have said: "If only its verses were made clear? What! A non-Arabic [book] and an Arab [messenger]?"} [Surat Fussilat: 44] And the verse that reads: {Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an.} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 3] This refers to Allah's favor upon His servants, for Arabic is the most comprehensive and the most eloquent language, so revealing the Book in it is a greater favor than sending it down in any other language.
It was first addressed to the Arabs because they could understand it, then those who knew their language because they could understand it as they did, and then those who did not know their language, for whom it is to be translated by those who know their language. The argument by it was first established against the Arabs and favor by it was first bestowed upon them, because they knew its meanings before others.
Allah Almighty says: {We have made this [Qur’an] easy in your own language, so that they may take heed.} [Surat ad-Dukhān: 58] Allah Almighty also says: {We have made this [Qur’an] easy in your language so that you may give thereby glad tidings to the righteous and warn people who are contentious.} [Surat Mariyam: 97] A contentious person tends to argue in a crooked way and deviate from the truth. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The most hateful man in Allah's sight is the most contentious and argumentative." [68]
[The third proof]
Regarding the verse that reads: {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people to make things clear for them.} [Surat Ibrāhīm: 4] It is actually as Allah Almighty has said it. Muhammad's people are the Quraysh, and in their language, he was sent. Allah Almighty did not say: "We did not send a messenger except to his people." Rather, He would send a messenger to his people as well as others. The Christians say: “Indeed, He sent the Messiah (peace be upon him) and the disciples to people other than the Children of Israel, though they did not belong to his people.” Likewise, Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent to his people and others. But he was sent in the language of his people so that he could make things clear to them, after which things would be made clear to others through them, either in their language and their tongue or through translation.
If it had not been made clear to his people first, the purpose of the mission would not have been achieved, neither with them nor with others. As it was made clear to his people, it was clarified to them and to others through them. He (ﷺ) was sent to his people first, called them first, and warned them first, and this does not mean that he was not sent to others too. But when the message was made clear to his people in their language, it would be possible for others to know it, either by learning it in their language or getting familiar with it in a language they could understand.
An author writes a scientific book in medicine, grammar, or mathematics in the language of his people, and then the book is translated into other languages so that other people can benefit from it. Similarly, books on medicine and mathematics, written in a non-Arabic language, were translated into Arabic and the Arabs benefited from them and knew the information and meanings intended by the authors, albeit they first penned them in the language of their people.
If this applies to such matters that have nothing to do with the happiness in the Hereafter and salvation from the punishment of Allah, how can it be not possible with regard to the knowledge linked to the happiness in the Hereafter and salvation from the punishment to be transferred from one language to another, so that the people of the latter language can understand what is intended by the first speaker in the former language?! A side remark / The falsity of the claim that the Qur’an contains verses entailing the exclusiveness of his mission to the Arabs
As the Muslims of Persia gave this a lot of attention, they translated numerous copies of the Qur’an, including the original Arabic and the Persian translation, whereas before Islam, they were more remote from Muslims than the Christian Romans. If the meanings of the Qur’an managed to reach the Magian Persians in Arabic and its translation, how could it not reach the People of the Book while they are closer to Muslims? Moreover, they have in their scriptures, such as the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms, and other scriptures, principles and teachings similar to what is generally mentioned in the noble Qur’an.
Rather, whoever ponders the scriptures of the prophets and ponders the Qur’an will be quite certain that Muhammad (ﷺ) is truly the Messenger of Allah, and so is Moses, given the agreement and harmony between the two Books, namely the Torah and the Qur’an, noting that neither did Moses (peace be upon him) take anything from Muhammad (ﷺ), nor did Muhammad (ﷺ) take anything from Moses. By consensus among those with knowledge of his life, Muhammad (ﷺ) was an unlettered man from among unlettered people, and he lived in Makkah, where there was none who memorized the Torah, the Gospel, or the Psalms. Muhammad ﷺ did not leave them or travel except for twice, to the Levant: He once traveled with his uncle Abu Tālib, before reaching puberty, and he stuck to him [69]. He traveled another time with Maysarah for his trade, and he was twenty-some years old and with a company who knew everything about him [70]. He never met any scholar to learn from him anything, not the Jewish or Christian scholars or any other scholars, and not Bahīra or anyone else. But when Bahīra, a monk, saw him, he recognized him, as he knew his description and traits from the books with him. He told his family about that and advised them to protect him from the Jews. Yet, he did not learn even one word from Bahīra or anyone else.
Nonetheless, the Qur’an contains verses that respond to the People of the Book with regard to some of their distortions - like their claim that the Messiah (peace be upon him) was crucified, or the claim of some that he is a god, or the claim of some others that he was a magician, and their slander against Solomon (peace be upon him), as they described him as a magician and so on - which all demonstrate that he did not take anything from them.
Moreover, the Qur’an contains stories about the prophets (peace be upon them) that are not mentioned in the Torah or the Gospel, like the stories of Hud, Salih, and Shuaib.
The Qur’an also mentions the Day of Judgment in detail and describes Paradise and Hellfire and the bliss and punishment in a way the like of which does not exist in the Torah or the Gospel. The Torah even has no explicit mention of the Day of Judgment, and what it contains about the divine promises and threats since it generally pertains to the life of this world, like the promise of sustenance, victory, and the good outcome, and the threats with drought, diseases, and enemies.
Nevertheless, the Day of Judgment was mentioned in divine scriptures other than the Torah, and therefore the People of the Book acknowledged the Day of Judgment and Resurrection. It is also said to be mentioned in the Torah as well, but not as extensively as in other divine scriptures.
[The fourth proof]
Regarding the verse that reads: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger.} This is true. And here is the complete verse: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and shun false gods." Among them were some whom Allah guided, while others were destined to stray. So, travel through the land and see how the end of the deniers was!} [Surat an-Nahl: 36]
This is similar to another verse that reads: {We have sent you with the truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. There has never been any community except that a warner came to it.} [Surat Fātir: 24] And the verse that reads: {You are only a warner, and for every people there is a guide.} [Surat ar-Ra‘d: 7] According to the more correct view, it means: Every people have a caller who invites them to the belief in Allah's oneness and His worship just as you are a guide, i.e., a caller to those to whom you were sent.
A "guide" here means a caller and one who teaches and conveys, not one who puts guidance into people's hearts. Allah Almighty says: {And you are truly guiding people to a straight path, the path of Allah, to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 52-53] And the verse that reads: {As for Thamūd, We showed them guidance, but they preferred blindness over the guidance.} [Surat Fussilat: 17]
It is well known that the Children of Israel received more prophets than any other community. Moses was sent to them, and after him many prophets appeared. The number is said to have reached one thousand sent to them. All of those prophets would enjoin the laws of the Torah and did not change anything thereof. Later, the Messiah came with other laws and changed some laws of the Torah, at Allah's command.
If sending Moses and the subsequent prophets to them did not prevent the sending of the Messiah to them, how would this prevent the sending of Muhammad ﷺ to the Jews and the Christians, when they did not receive any messenger from Allah since the Messiah! Allah Almighty says: {O People of the Book, there has come to you Our Messenger, revealing to you much of what you have been concealing of the Scripture, and overlooking much. There has surely come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 15] Shaykh al-Islam said: "As verified, it was first addressed to the Arabs; rather, it was first addressed to Quraysh, then the Arabs, and then the rest of the people, including the People of the Book and those who had no book among non-Arabs." See: Tafsīr Āyāt Ushkilat (1/236-238), Ar-Radd ‘Ala Al-Mantiqiyyīn (p. 540), and Majmū‘ Al-Fatāwa (16/189-192).
[The fifth proof]
Regarding their interpretation of the verse that reads: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85] They said He means his people. As they said: "As for the verse that reads: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers}, He means - as entailed by the principle of justice - his people to whom he came, not others to whom he did not come with it." [71]
They should be told: Whoever interprets the speech of a speaker - any speaker - in a way known to people that contradicts his intent is a liar and fabricator, even if the speaker is an ordinary person, and even if he is a false prophet. If a person who is known to be a liar speaks and his intent is made clear, it is not valid to falsely attribute something different to him, saying: He meant such and such. Lying about anyone, be he truthful or a liar, is unlawful and reprehensible. Far worse is interpreting the intent of Allah and His Messenger by something known to all those closely familiar with his life and conditions to differ from His real intent, and they even essentially know that the statement denotes generality.
The verse that reads: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam} is phrased in general terms. The word 'anyone' or 'whoever' is one of the most effective forms of generality, like in the verse that reads: {So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.} [Surat az-Zalzalah: 7-8] Surat al-Jinn also comprises a similar meaning.
Besides, the context indicates that He meant the People of the Book and others. This occurs in Surat Āl ‘Imrān as He addresses the People of the Book and debates with the Christians, and these verses were revealed after the Nājran delegation came to the Prophet (ﷺ). It was reported that they numbered sixty riders and among them were As-Sayyid, Al-Ayham, and Al-‘Āqib. Their story is well known. See the rest of the verses: [Surat an-Nisā’: 79], [Surat al-Furqān: 1], [Surat Sād: 86-88], and [Surat at-Takwīr: 19-29].
Before these words, He was dispraising the religion innovated by the Christians, with which they changed the Messiah's religion and mixed the truth with which the Messiah was sent with the falsehood they invented; thus, their religion became a composite of truth and falsehood, with each of them mixing with the other, so much that almost no one can distinguish between what the Messiah abrogated from the laws of Moses and what he approved. The Messiah approved most of the laws of Moses and changed some of them. The majority of Christians cannot distinguish what he approved from what he changed; so, you cannot really identify [72] the Messiah's religion.
Allah Almighty says: {It is not for a human being whom Allah has given the Scripture, wisdom, and prophethood to say to the people: "Be my worshipers instead of Allah." Rather, he would say: "Be devoted servants of your Lord because of your teaching of the Scripture and because of your study thereof." Nor would he order you to take angels and prophets as lords. Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allah [as Muslims]?} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 79 - 80] He Almighty points out that whoever takes the angels and prophets as lords is a disbeliever. So, whoever takes anyone other than them as lords becomes a disbeliever with greater reason. Mentioning that the Christians took others who are lower than the angels and prophets as lords, Allah Almighty says: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31]
Then, in Surat Āl ‘Imrān, Allah Almighty also says: {And [remember] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying]: "After I have given you the Book and wisdom, if there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, then you must believe in him and support him." Allah said: "Do you affirm this covenant and accept this commitment?" They said: "Yes, we do." He said: "Then bear witness and I am with you among the witnesses."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 81]
Ibn ‘Abbās and others among the righteous predecessors said: Allah did not send any prophet except that He took the covenant from him that if Muhammad was sent while he was alive, he must believe in him and support him, and He commanded him to take the covenant of his community that if Muhammad was sent while they were alive, they must believe in him and support him [73].
This proves that if Muhammad was sent while any of the prophets and their followers were alive, albeit they had a divine scripture and wisdom, they are committed to believe in Muhammad and support him - as Allah Almighty says: {After I have given you the Book and wisdom, if there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, then you must believe in him and support him.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 81]
The prophets affirmed this covenant, and Allah was Witness to them - as Allah Almighty says: {Allah said: "Do you affirm this covenant and accept this commitment?" They said: "Yes, we do." He said: "Then bear witness and I am with you among the witnesses."} Then, Allah Almighty says: {Whoever turns away after this, it is they who are the rebellious.} Then, Allah Almighty says: {Do they seek other than the religion of Allah, whereas to Him submit all those in the heavens and on earth, willingly or unwilling, and to Him they will return?} Then, Allah Almighty says: {Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit."} Then, Allah Almighty says: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 82-85]
A group of the righteous predecessors said [74]: When Allah revealed this verse, some of the Jews and Christians said: We do submit to Allah. So, Allah Almighty said: {Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah upon all people who are able to make their way to it.} In response, they said: We do not perform pilgrimage. So, Allah Almighty said: {Whoever disbelieves, then Allah is in no need of anything in all the worlds.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 97] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (2457) and Muslim (2668).
Whoever does not consider the pilgrimage as a duty on him - while he can perform it - is a disbeliever, by consensus among Muslims, as established by the Qur’an. This being said, the Jews and the Christians do not deem the pilgrimage a duty; so, they are disbelievers. This ruling is further stressed in a Hadīth attributed to the Prophet ﷺ in which he said: "If anyone possesses enough provision and a mount to take him to the House of Allah and does not perform the pilgrimage, it does not matter whether he dies as a Jew or a Christian." [75] It was also narrated as one of the statements of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (may Allah be pleased with him). [76]
Muslims unanimously agree that whoever denies the obligation of the five pillars of Islam - the two testimonies, the five prayers, Zakah, the fasting of Ramadan, and pilgrimage to the House - is a disbeliever.
Also, Allah Almighty says in the first verses of Surat Āl ‘Imrān: {Allah testifies that none has the right to be worshiped except Him, as do the angels and people of knowledge; He is the Upholder of justice. None has the right to be worshiped except Him, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. The true religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture did not dispute except after the knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy and rivalry. But whoever rejects the verses of Allah, then Allah is swift in reckoning. Then if they argue with you, say: "I have submitted myself to Allah, and so have those who follow me." And say to those who were given the Scripture and to the illiterate: "Have you submitted yourselves?" If they do, then they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the message. And Allah is All-Seeing of His slaves.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 18 - 20]
After the verse that reads: {The true religion with Allah is Islam}, Allah Almighty commanded him to say "I have submitted myself to Allah, and so have those who follow me" and to say to those who were given the Scripture - the Jews and the Christians - and to the illiterate, i.e., those who had no scripture among the Arabs and others: "Have you submitted yourselves?"
The illiterate Arabs fall under the meaning of the term "the illiterate", by consensus. As for non-Arabs, they are either included in this term or fall under the same meaning with any other term that points out he was sent to all humankind.
Allah Almighty says: {If they do, then they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the message. And Allah is All-Seeing of His slaves.} So, Allah Almighty commanded the People of the Book to embrace Islam, just as He commanded the illiterate, and He regarded them as guided if they submit themselves; and in case they do not, He said: {Your duty is only to convey the message.} In other words: Convey the messages of your Lord to them, and it is He Who will hold them accountable.
This all indicates that the Prophet ﷺ was required to convey Islam to the People of the Book, just as he was required to convey it to the illiterate; and that Allah will hold them accountable for not embracing Islam as He will hold the illiterate accountable. See: At-Tabaqā t Al-Kubra (1/128-130) and Tarīkh At-Tabari (2/278-279). See: Sīrat Ibn Hishām (1/171-172) and Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah by Al-Bayhaqi (2/66-67).
In the Two Sahīh Collections, the Prophet ﷺ sent a letter to Heraclius, the Christian king, and it reads: "From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Heraclius, premier of the Romans. Peace be upon those who follow guidance! Thereafter, embrace Islam and you will be safe. Embrace Islam, and Allah will give you a double reward. But if you turn away, then upon you will be the sins of the peasants. And {O people of the Book, come to a common term between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and associate no partners with Him, and that we do not take one another as lords besides Allah.” But if they turn away, say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah].'" [77]
More profound still is that Allah Almighty states in His Book that Islam is the religion of the prophets, like Noah, Abraham, and Jacob and their followers until the disciples. This affirms the verse that reads: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85] And that the true religion in the sight of Allah is Islam, in every time and place.
Allah Almighty says about Noah, the first Messenger sent to the people of this world: {Relate to them the story of Noah when he said to his people: "O my People, if my presence among you and my reminding you of Allah’s signs have become unbearable to you, then in Allah I have put my trust. So, gather all your schemes, you and your [so-called] partners, leaving no room for uncertainty, then carry it out against me, and give me no respite. But if you turn away, then I have not asked you for any reward. My reward is only with Allah, and I have been commanded to be among those who submit to Allah [as Muslims]."} [Surat Yūnus: 71-72] This is Noah, due to whose call Allah Almighty drowned the inhabitants of the earth, and He made all humankind his offspring; He mentions that he was commanded {to be among those who submit to Allah [as Muslims].}
As for Abraham, Allah's close friend, Allah Almighty says that He commanded him to submit himself, and that he said: {I have submitted to the Lord of the worlds.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 131] And that Abraham advised his children and Jacob advised his children not to die except as Muslims. [78]
About Moses, Allah Almighty says: {Moses said: "O my people, if you have faith in Allah, then put your trust in Him, if you have truly submitted."} [Surat Yūnus: 84]
And about the disciples, Allah Almighty says: {And [remember] when I inspired the disciples: "Believe in Me and in My messenger [Jesus]." They said: "We believe, and bear witness that we submit to Allah [as Muslims]."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 111]
All these prophets and their followers - Allah mentions about them that they were Muslims, which makes clear the verse that reads: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him} And the verse that reads: {The true religion with Allah is Islam} These verses do not exclusively apply to the people to whom Muhammad ﷺ was sent, but this was a general ruling that applied to the earlier and later generations.
Therefore, Allah Almighty says: {Who is better in religion than one who submits himself entirely to Allah, does good, and follows the religion of Abraham, exclusively devoted to Allah? For Allah did take Abraham as a close friend.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 125] And Allah Almighty says: {And they say: "None will enter Paradise except a Jew or a Christian." That is their wishful thinking. Say: "Produce your proof, if you are truthful." On the contrary, whoever submits himself to Allah and is a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. They will have no fear, nor will they grieve.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 111-112]
The foregoing was the response to the first aspect, namely the claim that he ﷺ did not say that he was sent except to the Arabs.
[The response to the second aspect] [79]
Regarding the second aspect, which is to say that he stated that he is a Messenger to all humankind, as mentioned in the Qur’an in a number of places, like the verse that reads: {We have not sent you [O Prophet] except as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind.} [Surat Saba’: 28]. And the verse that reads: {Say [O Prophet]: "O people, I am the Messenger of Allah to you all. To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth."} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 158]
Allah Almighty also explicitly mentions, in a number of places in the Qur’an, the call to the People of the Book and the call to jinn. The Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 414).
If they accept that He said this, yet they disbelieved him regarding this, they either acknowledge his mission to the Arabs or do not acknowledge it.
If they acknowledge that he is a Messenger sent by Allah, then it is not valid for them to disbelieve him [80], as previously mentioned. Rather, they must acknowledge his mission to all mankind, as he informed. As previously noted, whoever states that he is the messenger of Allah is either among the noblest and most truthful of people or among the most wicked and untruthful ones. If he is truthful, he is one of the noblest, and if he is a liar, he is one of the most wicked. If Allah sends a messenger even to a mere village, as He sent Jonah, son of Amittai, to the people of Nineveh, this means he is one of the noblest people, and he is truthful and only speaks the truth about Allah, not telling lies about Him. If he lies about Allah even in one word, then he is one of the liars and cannot be one of the true messengers of Allah. A liar does not tell lies about everything, but only about some. So, whoever tells a lie about Allah even in one word has thus fabricated falsehood about Allah and falls under the category of false prophets, not the true ones.
[81] Moreover, the objective of a messenger's mission is to convey the messages of Allah as they are due. So, if falsehood is mixed with the truth, the mission's objective cannot be achieved.
Also, if he is known to have lied in some aspects of his message, his truthfulness cannot be distinguished from the lies he told, without another proof other than his message; thus, the objective of his mission cannot be reached. i.e., most of the Christians.
Hence, the adherents of all religions agree that the messengers are infallible in what they convey about Allah Almighty. No one ever said that a messenger sent by Allah would lie about Him.
Making clear that He would not approve of someone who lies about Him, Allah Almighty says: {If he had falsely attributed something to Us, We would have surely seized him by the right hand, then severed his aorta, and none of you could have rescued him.} [Surat al-Hāqqah: 44-47]
Allah Almighty also says: {Or do they say: "He has fabricated lies about Allah!"? But if Allah willed, He could seal up your heart.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 24] Then, Allah Almighty says: {Allah wipes out falsehood and establishes the truth by His Words.} His words: {Allah wipes out falsehood and establishes the truth by His Words.} is a new statement, not part of the preceding conditional sentence; if it were, He would say: "and He could establish the truth", as in the verse: {Stand up in prayer at night.} [Surat al-Muzzammil: 2] But, since He said: {Allah wipes out falsehood and establishes the truth by His Words}, using the simple present tense, this signifies that it is a new statement, in which Allah Almighty informs that He wipes out falsehood - like the falsehood of those who lie about Him - and establishes the truth, like the truth of those who speak the truth about Him. So, wiping out falsehood and establishing the truth is not linked to Allah's will; rather, this is sure to happen, unlike sealing up his heart, which is linked to mentioning Allah's will. It is not proper to link the elimination of falsehood to the conditional clause, like the case of sealing up the heart; rather, He hurls the truth at falsehood, and it crushes it. See: Tafsīr At-Tabari (6/555); reported by ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib.
About His protection and perfection of what His messengers convey, Allah Almighty says: {We did not send any messenger or prophet before you except that when he recited, Satan would cast into it [some falsehood]. But Allah would abolish what Satan casts, then Allah would confirm His verses, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. [That is] so that He may make what Satan casts a trial for those [hypocrites] whose hearts are sick and those [disbelievers] whose hearts are hardened, for indeed the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension. And so that those who were given knowledge may know that this [Qur’an] is the truth from your Lord, so they may believe in it and their hearts may become humbled to it. Allah surely guides those who believe to the straight path.} [Surat al-Hajj: 52-54]
Also, if he was not sent except to the Arabs, and he called the Jews and the Christians to believe in him, declared them disbelievers if they disbelieved in him, engaged in jihad against them, and killed their fighters and took their children captive, this would be oppression that can only be committed by the worst wrongdoer, and a prophet sent by Allah would never do this or that.
So, acknowledging his mission to the Arabs and not to others, though his call apparently encompasses all people, is contradictory and obviously erroneous; every proof for his prophethood entails that he was sent to all humankind. Whoever acknowledges that he is a Messenger is also required to acknowledge that he is a Messenger to all mankind; otherwise, this would indicate that Allah sent a Messenger who lies about Him and falsely tells people: Indeed, Allah commands you to follow me and commands me to fight you if you do not. It is well known that every proof for him being a Messenger sent by Allah also proves he was truthful about his mission; otherwise, he was not a Messenger. An untruthful prophet would not achieve the objective of the mission. Rather, he is one of those who fabricate lies about Allah, and those are not messengers of Allah and should not be believed as they claim that Allah sent them. Imām Ash-Shāfi‘i narrated that ‘Ikrimah reported: When {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him} was revealed, the Jews said: "We are Muslims." Thereupon, Allah Almighty said to His Prophet: Ask them to perform pilgrimage, or in another version: Confute them by their pilgrimage. The Prophet ﷺ said to them: "Perform pilgrimage." They said: "It was not ordained upon us," and they refused to perform pilgrimage. So, Allah Almighty said: {Whoever disbelieves, then Allah is in no need for the worlds.} ‘Ikrimah said: Whoever among the adherents of the different religions disbelieves, then Allah is in no need for the worlds. See: Al-’Umm by Ash-Shāfi‘i (2/119) and Sunan Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr (3/1063), (No. 506).
Another possibility is when they do not acknowledge his mission to the Arabs or others and say about him the same as the Arab polytheists used to say about him, describing him as a poet, a magician, a fabricating liar, and so on. Narrated by At-Tirmidhi in his [Jāmi‘ Collection] no. (812). He said: "This Hadīth is strange, which we do not know except through this chain of transmission. Its chain of transmission is questionable. Hilāl ibn ‘Abdullāh is unknown, and Al-Hārith is regarded as a weak narrator in Hadith." It was reported by ‘Ali and Abu Hurayrah, and no Hadīth is authentically attributed to the Prophet (ﷺ) on this issue. See: Ad-Du‘afā’ Al-Kabīr by Al-‘Uqayli (4/348), Al-Kāmil Fi Du‘afā’ Ar-Rijāl (8/427), and Tanqīh At-Tahqīq by Ibn ‘Abdul-Hādi (3/404-410). Narrated by ‘Abdur-Razzāq in his Musannaf (9557). See also: The Forty Hadīths by Al-Ājurri (p. 167).
[82] It will be said to them: Based on this estimation, your proof is also void, and it is not valid for you to cite as an argument for your denial of Muhammad (ﷺ) any of the statements of the prophets before him, whether you believe Muhammad (ﷺ) in all what he says or part of it or deny him. Your proof is void, and it entails the falsity of your religion in every estimation, and what is proved to be false in every estimation is also false in the same matter; so, it is proved to be false in the same matter.
That is because if you deny Muhammad, there will remain no way for you to ascertain the truthfulness of other prophets. So, denying him makes it impossible to believe others. If someone thinks he is untruthful, yet he believes others, he thus has no adequate knowledge of the truthfulness of the others; rather, he believes them without knowledge; and if he has no such knowledge, it is not valid for him whatsoever to cite their statements as arguments. He would thus be speaking and arguing about something he has no knowledge about.
Indeed, the proofs for the truthfulness of Muhammad ﷺ are stronger and more numerous than the proofs for the truthfulness of Moses and Jesus; his miracles are greater than the miracles of others; the book he was sent with is nobler than the books with which other prophets were sent; the Shariah he came with is more perfect than the laws brought by Moses and Jesus (peace be upon both of them); and his Ummah is more meritorious in every aspect than the community of this and that. There is no useful knowledge or righteous act in the Torah or the Gospel except that there is in the Qur’an something similar or better than that; whereas the Qur’an contains useful knowledge and righteous acts the like of which does not exist in the Torah or the Gospel.
None of the criticisms by the enemies of the prophets directed at Muhammad ﷺ except that it can also be directed at Moses and Jesus - or even worse criticism. This issue is tackled at length in another place [83], not here, as it is not needed in response to them. So, one cannot acknowledge the prophethood of Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both) while denying Muhammad's prophethood. Only the most ignorant and misguided among people would do so - or those who are most obstinate and most subservient to their whims.
This is because those people cited what they transmitted from the prophets as arguments, without presenting the proof for their truthfulness. Rather, they took it for granted. Meanwhile, they seek to use what they reported from the prophets before him and what they reported from him as proof that their religion is true. This argument is void, whether they believe in him or not. In fact, if they believe him, their religion is false, and if they disbelieve him, their religion is false. If they believe him, then it is known that he called them and all people of the world to believe in him and obey him, as Jesus, Moses, and other messengers called the people; and that he invalidated their belief in the Unity and the like and declared them as disbelievers in a number of places.
Hence, the mere belief that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah - even to the Arabs only - entails the falsity of the religion of the Christians and the Jews and any religion that contradicts his religion. A messenger of Allah would not lie about Allah, and Muhammad ﷺ is known to have called the Christians and the Jews to believe in him and obey him, as he called others, and declared as a disbeliever anyone who did not believe in him and threatened him with Hellfire. This was mass transmitted from him in a way known to everyone, the elite and the ordinary people, and there is ample reference to this in the Qur’an. For example, Allah Almighty says: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going to desist [from disbelief] until there came to them clear proof.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] Allah Almighty also says: {The true religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture did not dispute except after the knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy and rivalry. But whoever rejects the verses of Allah, then Allah is swift in reckoning.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 19]
Allah Almighty mentions the Jews and the Christians in a number of verses. For example, He says about the Christians in two different verses: {Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly disbelieved.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17, 72] Allah Almighty also says: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73] And Allah Almighty says: {And the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah."} [Surat at-Tawbah: 30] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri (7) and Muslim (1773).
The Christians said those three things, and so Allah mentions them. Some people, however, think that this statement was made by one Christian sect, and that statement by another sect, and the third statement by yet another sect. This was stated by a group of the Qur’an's exegetes, like Ibn Jarīr at-Tabari and Ath-Tha‘labi. At-Tabari thought that these sects preceded Jacobinism, Nestorianism, and Malakism.
The correct view is that these statements were all made by the famous Christian sects: Malakism, Jacobinism, and Nestorianism; for all these sects believed in the Three Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They say that Allah is one of three, that Jesus is Allah, and that Jesus is the son of Allah. They are in agreement over the unification of Lāhūt (divinity) and Nāsūt (humanity), and that the unified one is the Word; and they agree over the creed of their faith that comprises this. This is their statement: "We believe in one God: A Father, Who governs everything, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and everything seen and unseen; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, who was born out of the Father before all ages, a light from light, a true god from a true god, who was born, not created."
The intended meaning here is that whether they believe in Muhammad or disbelieve in him, this entails the invalidity of their religion in either way. If he is a true prophet, he indeed conveyed from Allah in this Book, in a number of verses, that the Christians are disbelievers, and he called them to believe in him and commanded Muslims to conduct jihad against them. So, whoever knows that he is a prophet, albeit to a certain community, must believe in all what he informed, and informed that the Christians are disbelievers and misguided. See the verses in Surat al-Baqarah: [127-132].
If this is established as true, then it is futile for them to cite as an argument anything of the books or based on reason. Rather, it should be known that overall, everything they cite as proof for the validity of their religion is void, even if the falsity of their arguments is not outlined in detail; for indeed the prophets would say nothing but the truth. Likewise, when the Messiah (peace be upon him) decided that the Jews who disbelieve in him are disbelievers, all the arguments used by the Jews to the contrary are invalid, for anything that contradicts the statement of an infallible prophet is void.
If they disbelieve in Muhammad altogether and say "he is not a prophet in the first place and was not sent to anyone, neither to the Arabs nor to others; and he is only a liar," they cannot at the same time believe in the prophethood of others, for the way in which the prophethood of Moses and Jesus can be ascertained also serves to ascertain Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood for greater reason.
If they say: The prophethood of Moses and Jesus was ascertained by miracles, and we knew about these miracles through successive transmission.
It should be said to them: The miracles of Muhammad (ﷺ) are greater, and they were transmitted in a more certain way, and the book he came with is more perfect, his Ummah is more meritorious, and the legislations of his religion are better. Moses came with justice, and Jesus came to complete it with graciousness; whereas Muhammad (ﷺ) combined justice and graciousness in his Shariah.
Someone may say: He, nonetheless, is a liar and fabricator. Based on this wrong judgment, there is a greater reason to say the same about other prophets. Thus, their denial of Muhammad ﷺ annuls all the prophethoods they believe in, for the ruling that applies to something also applies to what is similar to it; so, what about that which is more deserving?
This is like saying: Aaron, Joshua, David, and Solomon were prophets, but Moses was not a prophet; or David, Solomon, Joshua, and John were prophets, but Jesus was not a prophet. See the response on the first aspect (p. 47).
Or he may say like the Samaritans [84]: Joshua was a prophet, but those who came after him, like David, Solomon, and Jesus, were not prophets.
Or he may say what the Jews say: David, Solomon, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Malaika, Amos, and Daniel were prophets, but Jesus, son of Mary, was not a prophet. This is a contradictory statement that is obviously untrue. Those from whom they negated the prophethood are more worthy of it and were more perfect as prophets than those for whom they affirmed prophethood. Moreover, the proofs for the prophethood of the more perfect prophets are stronger. So, how can prophethood be affirmed for the less perfect prophets, not for the more perfect ones?
This is similar to saying: Zufar, Ibn al-Qāsim, Al-Muzani, and Al-Athram were jurists, but Abu Hanīfah, Mālik, Ash-Shāfi‘i, and Ahmad were not.
Or saying: Al-Akhfash, Ibn al-Anbāri, and Al-Mubarrid were grammarians, but Al-Khalīl, Sibawayh, and Al-Farrā’ were not. Marginal remark/ If his prophethood is established, he must be believed in all what he said.
Or like saying: The authors of the books "Al-Malaki" and "Al-Masīhī" [85] and similar books of medicine were physicians, but Hippocrates, Galen, and the like were not. Marginal remark/ There is a falsity of the claim that he was truthful about his prophethood to the Arabs, yet untruthful about his prophethood to all humankind.
Or like saying: Koshiar and Al-Kharaqi [86] and the like of them were astronomers, whereas Ptolemy and the like of him were not astronomers.
Whoever says that David, Solomon, Malaika, Amos, and Daniel were prophets and Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh was not, the contradiction and falsity of his statement is clearer than all of these.
Likewise, whoever says that Moses and Jesus are two messengers and the Torah and the Gospel are two divine scriptures, whereas Muhammad is not a messenger and the Qur’an is not a divine scripture, the falsity of his statement is so obvious to anyone who considers what Muhammad ﷺ came with and what the preceding prophets came with, specifically looking into his book and the books before him, the signs of his prophethood and the signs of the prophethood of those prophets, and the legislations of his religion and the legislations of their religion.
Those people did not produce one proof for the truthfulness of those prophets they cite for argument. If any of the polytheists and atheists, who disbelieve in all those prophets, held a debate with them, nothing of what they mentioned would constitute an argument in their favor; and they also have no valid argument against Muslims who acknowledge the prophethood of those prophets. In fact, the majority of Muslims came to know about the truthfulness of those prophets because Muhammad ﷺ informed that they are prophets; so, it is not possible to accept the branches and reject the root, through whom they learned about their truthfulness.
Moreover, the way in which the prophethood of those was known, through their well-established miracles and news, does also point, with greater reason, to the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ), through his well-established miracles and news. So, it is not possible that any Muslim would believe in the prophethood of one of those and disbelieve in even one word of what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with.
[The Christians' use of the prophets' statements as arguments]
We have earlier mentioned that it is not valid for them to cite as an argument anything of the Qur’an or the reports transmitted from Muhammad ﷺ unless they believe in his message, and if they deny his message, they cannot acknowledge the prophethood of others or use any of the prophets' statements as an argument. Their denial of him entails their denial of others. If the prophethood of any other prophet is established, his prophethood too is established, which entails the falsity of their religion. The validity of their proof entails the falsity of the proven thing, and the falsity of the proven thing entails the invalidity of the proof. Indeed, the proof and the proven thing are correlated. If one of them is sound, the other must be sound, and vice versa. Falsehood cannot be established by a sound proof.
So, if Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), this entails the invalidity of their religion; and if their religion is invalid, there cannot be a sound proof for its trueness. And if he is not the messenger of Allah, then it is not valid to cite his statements as arguments. Hence, their use of his statements for argument is invalid in either of the two cases.
We here mention that it is not proper for them to cite any of the statements of the prophets and messengers as proof for the validity of their religion. Marginal remark/ Their denial of his message signifies their denial of all other prophets
[87] Also, as for those prophets whose statements they used as arguments, like Moses, David, and Jesus:
They either knew that they are prophets through evidence of their prophethood, like their signs and proofs which are called 'miracles'.
Or they held this belief without knowledge or evidence. See: Majmū‘ Al-Fatāwa (4/201-208).
Or they used this as an argument against Muslims because they believe in the prophethood of those prophets.
In all cases, it is not valid for them to use their statements as arguments.
[88] As for the first one, this is because if the prophethood of any of those prophets (peace be upon them) is established by any method, Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood can be established by the like of it or even by a stronger way.
Hence, if they do not acknowledge Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood, though every proof for the prophethood of Moses, David, Jesus, and others is also a proof of Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood, they have thus revoked their proof, which remains there but without proving anything. If proof is revoked, it no longer has significance, for it serves its purpose when it is correlated with proving something. But, if it sometimes exists along with proving something and stands without it some other times, then it is not correlated with it; thus, it is not proof.
Those who regard the miracles as evidence for the prophethood of a prophet and define a miracle as a supernatural act coupled with an unopposed challenge, and so on, and consider this to be a proof for the prophethood of Moses and Jesus and other prophets,
we say to them: If this is a proof, then it is a proof for the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ; and if it is not, then it does not prove the prophethood of Moses and Jesus. Miracles were proven for Muhammad (ﷺ) the like of which were not proven for others, and his miracles were transmitted in a successive and more certain way than the transmission of the miracles of Jesus and others. So, one cannot believe his miracles while denying those of Muhammad (ﷺ).
If they say: Muhammad's (ﷺ) miracles were not successively transmitted to us.
We say to them: It is not required that successive transmission occur among a certain group of people. This is similar to the polytheists, Magi, and others saying that the miracles of Moses and Jesus (peace be upon both of them) were not successively transmitted to them. The news about a particular person may be successively transmitted among those who saw him or saw those who saw him, and so on.
It is well-known that the Companions of Muhammad (ﷺ) who saw him and transmitted his miracles are many times more than the disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him), and the same holds true for the succeeding generation who transmitted from the Companions. So, believing the miracles of Jesus (peace be upon him) entails belief in the miracles of Muhammad (ﷺ), and denial of Muhammad's (ﷺ) miracles entails denial of the Messiah's miracles.
If they say: The prophethood of the Messiah was known through the prophecies of his coming by the prophets before him.
We say to them: The previous scriptures have prophecies about Muhammad's ﷺ coming more than they have about the coming of Jesus.
If they interpret the prophecies about Muhammad's ﷺ coming in a way that changes their meaning.
We say to them: The Jews, likewise, interpret the prophecies about the coming of Jesus in a way that changes their meaning. There is one of the Jewish sects, which differs from the mainstream Jews in terms of their Torah and their law.
If they say: These interpretations are invalid for a number of well-known reasons; we clarify to them that these interpretations are also invalid for similar and stronger reasons.
There is no proof of any kind that proves the prophethood of Moses and Jesus except that it also proves Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood in a stronger and more comprehensive manner. So, the affirmation of the prophethood of Moses and Jesus entails the affirmation of Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood, and rejection of Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood entails rejection of the prophethood of Moses and Jesus.
If they say: Jesus is a god.
We say to them: Proving that he is a god, if possible, is harder than proving that he is a messenger; then, what about if this is impossible? This is because they have no proof for his divinity except what they transmit of the prophets' statements or the supernatural incidents: Al-Malaki: it is the book "Kāmil As-Sinā‘ah At-Tibiyyah Ad-Darūriyyah" by ‘Ali ibn al-‘Abbās al-Majūsi. Al-Masīhi: it is the book "Kannāsh Masīh", and it is called "Al-Masīhi" after its author ‘Īsa ibn Hakam ad-Demashqi, a physician known as Masīh. See: Ikhbār Al-‘Ulamā’ Bi Akhbār Al-Hukamā’ (1/280), ‘Uyoun Al-Anbā’ (pp. 177, 320), and Al-A‘lām (4/297).
Supernatural incidents do not prove divinity, for the prophets kept bringing supernatural miracles, but they did not indicate divinity of anyone of those prophets. Koshiar: Abu al-Hasan Koshiar ibn Labbān al-Jīli (d. 350 H). Al-Kharaqi: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Marwazi; he authored "At-Tabsirah Fi ‘Ilm Al-Hay’ah" (d. 533 H). See: Tatimmat Sawān Al-Hikmah (p. 91); Al-A‘lām (5/236-317); and Al-Fawā’id Al-Bahiyyah by Al-Kanawi (p. 92).
As for the prophets' statements, there is no doubt that their indication to his message and the message of Muhammad (ﷺ) is clearer than their indication to Jesus' divinity. So, they cannot be used as proof for the divinity of Jesus and not the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) and the prophethood of Jesus.
Once Muhammad ﷺ is proven to be the Messenger of Allah, the divinity of Jesus is rendered invalid, for he declared as disbelievers those who say that he is Allah or the son of Allah. Even proving Jesus to be the Messenger of Allah nullifies his divinity, as for him to be Allah as well as the Messenger of Allah is - contradictory.
[89] Their statement that "he is a god with his divinity and a messenger with his humanity" is void, from a number of aspects:
The First Aspect: The one who spoke to the people was either Allah or the Messenger of Allah. If he was Allah, this would invalidate him being the Messenger of Allah; and if he was the Messenger of Allah, this would invalidate him being Allah. Therefore, since the One Who spoke to Moses through the tree was Allah, the books did not say that He was the Messenger of Allah.
This applies in any way they construe unity. It is well known that people used to hear speech from Jesus in his known voice, and neither his voice nor his condition experienced any change, as a person's voice and condition change when he gets possessed by a demon and when the demon departs his body. When a demon speaks through the tongue of a possessed person, there emerges a marked difference between that possessed person and other people, and his condition and way of speaking change, and people hear speech from him that they know for sure he did not know before; and he loses his mind in a way apparent to those attending, and his voice and tone become different. So, what about a person whom Allah enters his body, with whom He unifies, and through whom He speaks?! There must be a far greater difference between His speech and voice and the speech and voice of other people than the difference between possessed and unpossessed persons.
As this shows, when Moses heard His speech, He heard a supernatural and unfamiliar voice and saw miracles and wonders indicating that what he heard could be spoken by none but Allah.
As for Jesus, his speech and voice, throughout his life, was no different from the speech of other people, which indicates that he was a prophet, rather than being a god; but he was known to be a prophet by separate proofs. And his condition did not change, even though they say that unity accompanied him from the time his humanity was created in the womb of his mother Mary to eternity, with divinity never ever separating from his humanity.
Hence, it is known that if his speech to the people was the speech of the Lord of the worlds, then he is not His Messenger; and if it was the speech of His Messenger, then this was not the voice of the Lord of the worlds.
The Second Aspect: His speech was that of a messenger and a prophet, as established about him in most places. Marginal remark/ It is not valid for them to use any of the prophets' statements in any case
The Third Aspect: That two things become one thing while each remains in its state without transformation and mingling is impossible and unreasonable. In unity, they should transform and blend, as water mingles with wine and milk. When they become one thing, they transform and blend.
The Fourth Aspect: With unity, two things become one. So, God becomes the Messenger, and the Messenger becomes God, for this one is that one. If God is not the Messenger, then they are two entities.
Regardless of how many examples they cite for comparison, such as likening this to fire in the iron and the soul in the body, this indicates the invalidity of their view. Indeed, if iron is stricken or put into the water, the fire gets affected too. Also, when the body starves or gets crucified and feels pain, the pain affects the soul as well, which means that the Lord of the worlds felt the pain of hunger and thirst, according to their view, as well as the beating and crucifixion. This is worse than the Jews' statement that He is poor and stingy and got tired.
[90] If they say: We believed those prophets without knowing their truthfulness or having a way to prove it, for this is the religion of our forefathers; we found them revering those and saying that they are prophets; so, we followed our forefathers in this without knowledge, which is the reality of most of them.
We say: If you say this about your forefathers [91] and regard what they bore witness to - if they did bear witness - this entails that they did not have knowledge about this; rather, they too, with greater reason, followed their forefathers in this without knowledge. This affirms the intended meaning here: that you have no knowledge or proof about your belief of the Christian religion; rather, you follow your forefathers in this as the Jews and polytheists follow their forefathers. Marginal remark/ The first opinion: Their knowledge of the prophets through proofs
This is undoubtedly the case of the Christians. Hence, Allah calls them 'astray' in the verse that reads: {Nor follow the desires of people who went astray before and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path.} [92] [Surat al-Māi’dah: 77] It is for this reason that the Christians are known for ignorance and misguidance. The Jews, on the other hand, are known for injustice, callousness, and obstinacy.
From the foregoing, it becomes clear that they cannot disbelieve Muhammad ﷺ even in one single word and at the same time cite any of the prophets' statements as an argument regarding anything of their religion or the religion of others.
If their objective is to use this as an argument against Muslims, we say to them:
[93] First: This is a dialectic argument. But what is your proof, between yourselves and Allah, regarding believing someone and disbelieving another, though the indications of truthfulness are the same in both, and they are even clearer in the one you disbelieved? So, if it is true, you must believe the one you disbelieved and thus your religion is rendered invalid; and if it is untrue, then it is invalid for you to use it as proof for your religion. Thus, it is proven that while they disbelieve Muhammad (ﷺ), it is not valid for them to use any of the prophets' statements for argument.
Second: Muslims recognized the truthfulness of those prophets through the proofs indicating Muhammad's (ﷺ) truthfulness. So, if Muhammad (ﷺ) was not truthful, they would not recognize their truthfulness, which would render your proof invalid; and if he was truthful, the religion of Christians would be invalid, and the proof for its trueness becomes worthless. Hence, their proof is null in either case.
Third: Muslims did not believe the prophethood of any of those except with the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ). Some may say that they knew this in another way. Indeed, any proof indicating the truthfulness of anyone of them also indicates truthfulness of Muhammad (ﷺ) more strongly. So, they cannot believe any prophet while disbelieving Muhammad (ﷺ).
Fourth: They believe Moses and Jesus who prophesized about Muhammad's (ﷺ) coming. If they really prophesized about him, then his prophethood is proven; and if they did not, still they do not believe except in those who prophesized about his coming and in the Torah and the Gospel wherein he is mentioned. If this was not the case anyway, they do not acknowledge the existence of Moses and Jesus and the Torah and the Gospel, sent down by Allah, in which he (ﷺ) is not mentioned.
[The Christians' citation of the Arabic language as an argument]
As for the fact that the Qur’an was revealed in the Arabic language only, there are some responses to that:
[94] The First Aspect: We say: And the Torah was revealed in the Hebrew language only, and Moses (peace be upon him) only spoke Hebrew. Likewise, Jesus did not speak about the Torah, the Gospel, or other books except in Hebrew. The same applies to the other scriptures, each of which Allah would reveal in one language, the language of the one to whom it was revealed and the language of his people whom he would address first.
All prophets would first address their community in the language they knew, and then the books and the prophets' words would be conveyed to the other communities:
They would either be translated for those who did not know the language of the book,
or the people would learn the language of this book and thus know its meanings.
Or the overall meanings of the messenger's message would be outlined to the addressed people in their language, even if they did not know other aspects of the message.
Allah Almighty reveals in the Qur’an what the messengers said to their communities and what their communities said to them, and most of them were non-Arabs, whereas Allah revealed this in Arabic.
Hence, the people's accountability is conditional upon their ability to understand the message of the messenger sent to them, which would happen by sending the messenger in a language with which they could understand his speech; thereafter, all people would be able to know his message by learning this language or knowing the meaning of the book through translation. This is something people can do.
If a person cannot understand the speech of the messenger except by learning the language in which he was sent, he is required to learn it. What is needed for fulfilling a duty is also a duty. By contrast, what is required for something to be a duty is not a duty. Allah does not burden anyone beyond their capacity, neither in the fundamental obligations nor at the level of perfection. So, we do not need to say: What is needed for fulfilling a duty, and it lies within one's ability, is a duty. This is because a person is not obligated to do anything beyond his capacity. On the contrary, there might be things that people are able to do and nonetheless they are not enjoined upon them. As ability is a requirement for the obligation of pilgrimage, attaining this ability is not an obligation. By contrast, traveling for a certain distance is not a requirement for the obligation. Therefore, a person is obligated to perform pilgrimage from a long or short distance if he has the ability.
Most people do not know the meanings of the divine books - the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an - unless they are clarified and interpreted to them, even though they know the language. Those people are obligated to seek the knowledge whereby they can know Allah's commands and prohibitions. This pursuit of knowledge is due upon people. Marginal remark/ The Christians' claim that Jesus is a god and a human
This also applies to the meanings of the Book which Allah revealed to the Messenger (ﷺ) and he clarified them - People are required to seek this knowledge from those who have it, in case this knowledge cannot be obtained through the tongue only. Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said: "Interpretation of the Qur’an falls under four categories: Interpretation known to the Arabs through their speech; interpretation no one is excused to be unaware of; interpretation known to the scholars; and interpretation that only Allah Almighty knows, and whoever claims to know it is a liar." [95]
And Allah Almighty says: {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people to make things clear for them.} [Surat Ibrāhīm: 4] He did not say: "We did not send any messenger but to his people." But He did not send any messenger except in the language of his people, to make things clear to them. When he makes things clear to his people, the objective is thus achieved regarding them and others, for his people to whom he first conveyed the message can convey from him the words and the meanings to those who do not understand his language; moreover, others can learn the language from them and thus understand his intent.
The argument is established against people and guidance reaches them through those who convey from the messenger, sometimes the words and sometimes the meanings. Hence, it is permissible to convey the messenger's words by their meanings.
[96] The Second Aspect: Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke Hebrew, and so did the disciples who first followed him. He sent them to the different communities to call them and translate for them the Messiah's statements.
If they say: The tongues of the Messiah's messengers were transformed into the language of those to whom they were sent.
We say: This is reported about the Messiah's messengers and about Muhammad's messengers, whom he sent to different nations. Undoubtedly, the messengers of Allah's Messengers, such as the messengers of Muhammad and Jesus (peace be upon both of them) to the different nations, had to know the language of those to whom they were sent, or there had to be among those people someone who knew their language and the language of the messenger to translate for them. If the people to whom the Messiah sent a messenger had none who knew Hebrew [97], his messenger must have known their language.
The same can be said about the Prophet's messengers to the different nations. When he ﷺ returned from Al-Hudaybiyyah, he sent his messengers far and wide. He sent them to the Arab kings in Yemen, the Hijaz, the Levant, and Iraq, and to the Christian kings in the Levant and Egypt, including the Copts, Romans, Arabs, and others. He also sent them to the Magian Persians, the kings of Iraq and Khorasan.
In "At-Tabaqāt", Muhammad ibn Sa‘d mentioned [98]: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) returned from Al-Hudaybiyah treaty, in Dhul-Hijjah of the sixth Hijri year, he dispatched messengers and wrote letters to the kings calling them to Islam. It was said: O Messenger of Allah, kings only read sealed letters. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) began to use a silver ring whose stone was part of it. On it, three lines were inscribed: "Muhammad. the Messenger of. Allah". He sealed the letters with that ring. Six messengers were dispatched on the same day, in Muharram of the seventh Hijri year, and each one of them came to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent.
To Heraclius, the Prophet (ﷺ) sent Dihyah ibn Khalīfah al-Kalbi. To Al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Egypt and Alexandria, he (ﷺ) sent Hātib ibn Abi Balta‘ah. To Khosrau, he (ﷺ) sent ‘Abdullāh ibn Hudhāfah as-Sahmi. And he (ﷺ) sent Shujā‘ ibn Wahd al-Asdi to Al-Hārith ibn Abi Shamir al-Ghassāni, the Christian ruler of Damascus. He also sent messengers to others.
He also mentioned [99] that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to his Companions: "Come to me, all of you, in the early morning." When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ offered the Fajr prayer, he used to sit in his praying place for a little while, glorifying and supplicating Allah. Then, he turned towards them and sent several people to several others; and said to them: "Be sincere to Allah as regards the matter of His servants. Whoever is assigned with responsibility for any of the affairs of Muslims and does not act sincerely, Allah makes Paradise forbidden for him. Do not do like the messengers of Jesus, the son of Mary, who went to those nearby and abandoned those who were distant." Whereupon each of them, i.e., the messengers, came to know the language of the people to whom he was sent. This was mentioned to the Prophet ﷺ, and he said: "This was the greatest among the rights of Allah Almighty upon them with regard to His servants." Marginal remark / The second opinion: Their belief in the prophets without proof
[100] The Third Aspect: The Christians include many Arabs from the Prophet's time, and they spoke Arabic and could understand the Qur’an, even if their original language was Persian, Roman, Turkish, Indian, or Coptic. In the original verified text: [the prophets]. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/281). The context means: If the approach of the Christians with regard to proving the trueness of the prophethood of the past prophets is mere imitation of their forefathers in what they affirmed, this entails, with greater reason, that their forefathers did not recognize the trueness of the prophethood of those prophets through knowledge and evidence. This is because their forefathers also imitated their forefathers. So, the word 'prophets' is not consistent with the meaning.
And those Christian scholars who sent this book had read the Qur’an and understood what they understood from it, and they can understand it in Arabic and cite verses from it for argument. So, how could they, nonetheless, say: How would the argument be established against us with a book we did not understand?! See the rest of the verses: [Surat an-Nisā’: 157], [Surat al-Kahf: 4-5], and [Surat ash-Shūra: 14]
[101] The Fourth Aspect: Understanding every verse of the Qur’an is not obligatory upon every Muslim. Rather, a Muslim is required to know Allah's commands and prohibitions to him in any words, and this is possible for all communities. That is why non-Arabs from different nations did embrace Islam such as Persians, Turks, Indians, Saqāliba, and Berbers. Some of them know the Arabic language and some others learn Allah's obligations through translation. [102]
If they say: "Our books - the Torah, the Gospel, and others - were translated for us by the disciples, whom we deem as infallible messengers. They translated them for all communities. By contrast, the Qur’an is translated by fallible people."
To this, we give a number of responses: Marginal remark/ The third opinion: Using the prophets' statements as arguments against the Muslims
[103] The First Aspect: This is an outright lie, for there are a countless number of Christians among the Arabs, and many among them converted to Christianity before Muhammad's mission. A group of them adopted the unaltered religion of Jesus (peace be upon him). They are believers who will be among the dwellers of Paradise, like all others who followed the Messiah's religion. Indeed, anyone who followed the unaltered religion of Jesus (peace be upon him) before Muhammad's mission is a believer and Muslim and will be among the people of Paradise.
Nevertheless, there does not exist on the face of the earth an Arabic copy of the Torah or the Gospel since the time of the disciples; rather, the Torah is translated from Hebrew or other languages into Arabic, and the Gospel is translated from Roman, Syriac, Greek, or other languages into Arabic.
If every community were to have a Torah, a Gospel, and other scriptures in their language, the Arab Christians would have been more entitled to that than the Abyssinian, Saqāliba, and Indian Christians, for they are close to Jerusalem and are descendants of Ishmael (peace be upon him).
They have four Gospels and claim that each one was written in a different language: Hebrew, Roman, and Greek. Nonetheless, the content of some Gospels does not exist in the others. An example is their statement: "Baptize the people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" [104]. They made it a foundation of their religion, whereas this is only a statement in the Gospel of Matthew.
If each one of the four wrote a Gospel in his language, there is still no single original Gospel to which all the Gospels refer.
Despite this, they say that these books were translated into 72 languages, a claim that contains aspects of falsehood and contradiction, some of which we will address, Allah Willing. But, they claim, at most, that it was translated into 72 languages, whereas it is well known that people in all parts of the world, in our time and in the past, speak more languages than this, as realized by everyone familiar with the world's affairs. Even one language, like Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, is one type under which different types fall, and they do not understand the language of one another without learning. Marginal remark/ A divine scripture is revealed in one language
The Arabs are the closest of all communities to the Children of Isaac [the Children of Israel and Esau]. They are the Children of Ishmael and their neighbors, for the people of the Hijaz are the neighbors of the Levant. The Arabs would still go to Makkah for pilgrimage, and they did not have an Arabic Torah or Gospel since the time of the Messiah (peace be upon him). There was even no Torah or Gospel in Makkah, neither in Arabic nor in any other language. Hence, Allah Almighty says: {To warn a people to whom no warner had come before you.} [Surat al-Qasas: 46] So, how could it be claimed that the disciples translated the Torah and the Gospel for every community of all humanity in all corners of the world in a language they could understand?! This can only be alleged by the most untruthful and ignorant among people!
[105] The Second Aspect: We say: Translating speech from one language to another does not need an infallible person; rather, this is something people are familiar with. Whoever knows two languages can translate between them. Knowledge about this can be obtained if there are lots of dispersed translators, who would not collude to lie, and available is evidence associated with the statements of any one of them and other things. This is something that exists and is well known.
Rather, if two people translate it, each of whom does not know what the other says, and they do not collude together, this mostly achieves the objective. They say that the Torah was translated by 72 Jewish rabbis - who were fallible, and the king dispersed them lest they might collude to lie - and they agreed over one translation. This happened after the first destruction. Similarly, any book other than the Torah can be translated.
This Torah in our time and the Gospel and the Psalms are translated into Arabic, and their meanings are understood without any doubt. So, how is the case with the Qur’an whose people understand its meanings, interpret it, and translate it better and more perfectly than the people of the Torah and the Gospel translate the Torah and the Gospel?!
[106] The Third Aspect: The claim that all of the disciples were infallible and were Messengers of Allah enjoying a status like that of Abraham and Moses (peace be upon both of them) is improper and false. Rather, they were the messengers of the Messiah (peace be upon him), enjoying a status like that of the messengers of Moses, the messengers of Abraham, and the messengers of Muhammad (ﷺ). Most Christians, or many of them, or all of them say: They are Messengers of Allah and are not prophets.
Whoever is not a prophet is also not a messenger of Allah and not infallible, even if he shows supernatural acts, like the close pious servants of Allah among Muslims and others. Although they have some miraculous incidents, they are not insusceptible to error. The supernatural incidents that take place at the hands of people other than the prophets (peace be upon them) do not prove they are close pious servants of Allah, according to most scholars, let alone being infallible. A pious servant of Allah dies as a believer, but the mere supernatural incident does not indicate that one will die as a believer; rather, his condition might change.
If we conclusively know that a certain person is a close pious servant of Allah, like those who the Prophet (ﷺ) informed are among the people of Paradise, we should still not believe in all he says, unless it accords with the prophets' statements. By contrast, the prophets (peace be upon them) are infallible, and no error can exist in what they convey. Therefore, Allah made it obligatory to believe in them. Whoever disbelieves in any one of them is a disbeliever, and whoever curses any one of them should be killed, according to the Islamic law. Allah Almighty says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted." If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided. But if they turn away, then they are in plain dissension. Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136-137] Allah Almighty also says: {The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, as do the believers. All of them believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers, [saying]: "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say: "We hear and obey. Grant us Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 285]
[The Christians arguing that the prophets were sent in their language]
As for their statement: "We are not required to follow him, for messengers came to us before him and addressed us in our language, warned us through this religion of ours to which we are adhering to this day, and gave us the Torah and the Gospel in our language, as confirmed by the book with which this man was sent, which says in Surat Ibrāhīm:" {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people.} [Surat Ibrāhīm: 4] And also says in Surat an-Nahl: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger.} [Surat an-Nahl: 36] [107] See: Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (5/6), Tafsīr ‘Abdur-Razzāq (1/253), and Tafsīr At-Tabari (1/75).
The response comprises a number of aspects:
[108] The First Aspect: The affirmation that a messenger came to you before him does not negate the coming of another messenger. Allah sent Moses (peace be upon him) to the Children of Israel, and they followed the laws of the Torah. Then, Allah Almighty sent Jesus (peace be upon him) to them, and they were obligated to believe in him. Whoever did not believe in him became a disbeliever, even if he said: I am holding onto the book that was sent down to us. Likewise, if Allah sends a messenger after the Messiah, it is obligatory to believe in him, and whoever does not believe in him becomes a disbeliever, just as those among the Children of Israel who did not believe in the Messiah became disbelievers.
The Children of Israel are more closely linked to Moses and the Torah than the Romans and others are linked to the Messiah and the Gospel, for they were Hebrews, and the Torah is in Hebrew. Marginal remark/ Conveying Muhammad's (ﷺ) message to the communities is like conveying the Messiah's message in the language of his people.
[109] The Second Aspect: Their claim that they are adhering today to the religion transmitted by the disciples from Jesus (peace be upon him) is outright lying. However, majority of their religion and its creeds and laws that they follow - such as honesty, praying towards the east, putting images and statues in the churches and taking them as mediators and taking the people of whom these images and statues are made as intercessors and naming festivities and churches after them, deeming pork lawful, abandoning circumcision, monasticism, observing fasting in the spring and making it 50 days, as well as the prayers, the offerings, and the law - were not transmitted from Jesus by the disciples, nor do they exist in the Torah or in the Gospel; rather, they are only holding onto a small part of what the prophets came with.
As for their disbeliefs and heresies, they are too many. No one transmitted from the Messiah or the disciples that they commanded them to say what they say in their pre-dawn prayer: "Let us prostrate to the Messiah, our God." In the second and third prayers, they say: "O Mother of God, Mary the Virgin, open for us the gates of mercy." In the original verified text: [in Arabic]. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/287). This word is not consistent with the meaning.
[110] The Third Aspect: Their statement that they handed over the Torah and the Gospel to them in their languages would apply, if it were true, to some Christians, not all of them. Arab and non-Arab Christians were not given a Torah or a Gospel in their languages. This is something well known. There is no Arabic copy of the Torah or the Gospel whatsoever from the time of the disciples. They were translated into Arabic in later times. So, if the argument was established against the Arab Christians before Muhammad (ﷺ) with a book that had been sent down in a language other than theirs and then translated for them into Arabic, why would the argument not be established against the Romans and others with a book that was sent down in a language other than theirs and then translated into their language?!
[111] The Fourth Aspect: We say: If a community changed the religion of the messenger who was sent to them and altered it, Allah would send another messenger to invite them to the religion that Allah loves and is pleased with. Just as the Children of Israel changed the religion of Moses and altered it, Allah sent Jesus to them and to others with the religion that He loves and is pleased with. Likewise, when the Christians changed the religion of Jesus and altered it, Allah sent Muhammad ﷺ to them and to others with the religion that He loves and is pleased with. At-Tabaqāt Al-Kubra (1/198).
The Prophet ﷺ is authentically reported to have said: "Verily, Allah looked at the people of the world and hated them; their Arabs and non-Arabs, except for some remnants from the People of the Book." [112] Those remnants who were adhering to the religion of Jesus before Muhammad's mission were following the religion of Allah Almighty. Then, from the time Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent, whoever does not believe in him will be among the dwellers of Hellfire, as the Prophet (ﷺ) said in an authentic Hadīth: "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, no one in this community, be he a Jew or a Christian, hears about me and then dies without believing in what I was sent with except that he will be among the dwellers of Hellfire." [113]
[114] The Fifth Aspect: Their statement: "They handed us the Torah and the Gospel in our languages, as confirmed by this book which this man came with." At-Tabaqāt Al-Kubra (1/202).
We say to them: Nothing in the Qur’an affirms that the Torah and the Gospel were given to you in your language. So, your citation of the Qur’an as an argument concerning this claim is like your resort to it as a proof that your religion is true, and similar to your use of the previous scriptures as a proof for the innovations and changes you brought to the religion of Jesus (peace be upon him), like the trinity, unity, etc. Marginal remark/ There is no excuse for the Arab Christians in their claim that they do not understand the message of Muhammad (ﷺ).
And their statement: "As Allah says: {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people.} Allah Almighty also says: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger.} "
We say to them: Undoubtedly, the people of Moses (peace be upon him) are the Children of Israel, and the Torah was revealed in their language; likewise, the Children of Israel are the people of Jesus (peace be upon him), and Jesus spoke in their language. None of the two Messengers spoke to anyone but in Hebrew. They did not speak Roman, Syriac, Greek, or Coptic. Marginal remark/ The objective of the message can be achieved through translation - and this is enough. Marginal remark/ The Christians' stipulation that the translator of the prophets' scriptures should be infallible.
And the verse that reads: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger.} [Surat an-Nahl: 36] is general and unrestricted, like another verse that reads: {There has never been any community except that a warner came to it.} [Surat Fātir: 24] This does not indicate that the Torah and the Gospel were given to them in their language.
The bottom line here is that Muhammad ﷺ did not bear witness that Jesus was a god or the disciples were messengers of Allah, or that they handed over the Torah and the Gospel to them in their language, or that they were infallible.
What they mentioned concerning the verse that reads: {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people.} It pertains to the Messengers of Allah, not the messengers of Allah's Messengers. Rather, the Messengers of Allah's messengers could convey the messages of the Messengers in the messengers' language, if there was a translator of this language; but if no translator of this language was available, the messengers of the Messengers would address them in their language. This does not entail, however, that they wrote the divine books in their language. It would suffice for them to read them in the prophets' language and then translate them into the language of those people. Marginal remark / The falsity of the claim that the disciples translated the Torah and the Gospel
Allah Almighty says: {We did not send any messenger but in the language of his people.} He did not say: "We did not send any messenger except to his people." Indeed, Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent in the language of his people, namely Quraysh, and sent to his people as well as others - and they say the same about Jesus (peace be upon him).
[The Christians' use of reason for argument]
Regarding their statement: "We know that Allah is just, and it is not just of Him to ask any community on the Day of Judgment to follow someone who did not come to them, and they did not receive any book from him in their language, nor from a caller from him." See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
We say: The response comprises a number of aspects:
[116] The First Aspect: This statement may not be said by the person who authored this book or by anyone knowing Arabic, for those people who understand this book in Arabic, and they read it and discussed its content. If, in addition to this, they knew another language other than Arabic, this would make the argument against them even stronger, as they could understand what he said in Arabic and then convey it to their people in the other language.
[117] The Second Aspect: They understand the content of their books in Roman, Syriac and Coptic and other languages, and translate it into Arabic for Arab Christians. So, if the argument is established against the Arab Christians in the Roman language, it can be established, with greater reason, against the Romans in the Arabic language. The Arabic language was more widespread around the world than the Roman language. And Arabic speakers, after the emergence of Islam, were greater in number than the speakers of any other language; and it is more eloquent and more understandable.
Hence, it was easier for non-Arabs to get acquainted with meanings in the Arabic language, given its eloquence and the large number of those who spoke it [and still speak it today]. The Christian scholars read books on medicine, arithmetic, philosophy, etc., in Arabic, though their authors are non-Arabs: Romans, Greek, and so on. So, nothing prevents them from reading the Arabic Qur’an and its interpretation, as well as the Prophet's Hadīths in Hebrew, though they were transmitted from the Prophet in Arabic. Indeed, it is more qualified to convey the meanings intended by the speaker. Marginal remark / The invalidity of the requirement that the translator should be infallible
[118] The Third Aspect: To say: People have three opinions on the justice of Allah [119]:
Some say: Everything predestined by Allah is just.
Others say: Justice from Him is in return for justice from His servants. Marginal remark / The improbability of the claim about the disciples' infallibility
These two opinions are weak.
Some others say: It is part of His justice that He rewards the good-doer for his good deeds, not detracting anything therefrom, and does not punish him if committed no sin.
It is well known that if Allah commands His servants to do something within their power, then it is permissible, by consensus among the adherents of the religions - Muslims, Jews, and Christians - even if the act is unpleasant to them, for indeed Paradise is surrounded with hardships and Hellfire is surrounded with desires. The Children of Israel and the Christians were tasked with unpleasant and hard things. So, why would it be not possible that He commands and prohibits them in a language that some Muslims can explain its meanings to them?!
The Arabs in whose language the Qur’an was sent down spread far and wide, and among them there were an overabundance of Christians to be counted. Every Christian who knew Arabic can understand what is said in Arabic. And if anyone of them is Roman, he has an example to follow: those who embraced Islam among the non-Arab communities, such as the Persians, the Turks, the Indians, the Berbers, and the Abyssinians; and he can know Allah's commands and act upon them, as all of those can. Romans are even more capable of doing so than others. So, for what reason would it be impossible that Allah commands them to do this?! The Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 414).
That without which a duty cannot be performed must be performed, if it lies within one's power - by consensus among the followers of the religions: Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
If Allah lays down an obligation upon His servants, and for them to fulfill it, they need to learn something, then its learning is incumbent upon them. [120] Marginal remark / Sending messengers to the People of the Book is not improbable, even if messengers had previously come to them.
If a person's knowledge of what Allah commanded him is contingent upon knowing the meanings of words He spoke in a language other than his own language, and he is able to learn the meanings of those words which are not part of his language or to know its translation in his language, then he is obligated to learn it.
If a king sent a letter to another king in a language other than his language, he would ask for someone to translate the letter's content, and it would not be proper for him to say: "You did not send someone who could address me in my language", while he could understand the letter through translation. Then, how could this be said to the Lord of the worlds?! Marginal remark / The invalidity of their adherence to the religion of Jesus which the disciples transmitted
Allah Almighty sent His messengers and revealed His books so that people may uphold justice. Allah Almighty says: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs and sent down with them the Scripture and the criteria of justice, so that the people may uphold justice.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] So, it is not valid for anyone to whom a messenger was sent, while he is able to know the message with which he was sent to him - through translation or any other means - to abstain from the legislation sent down by Allah, which is justice with which He sent His messenger, only because the messenger's language is different from his, even though he can understand his intent by various ways.
In their worldly interests, people seek to understand one another through translation and other means, and they engage in business transactions and discuss how to develop their countries and achieve their personal purposes, with the help of translators. Marginal remark/ Their views do not apply to all Christians.
The matter of religion is more significant than worldly affairs. So, how would they not seek to understand one another's intent in this regard?! Worldly life would be more of a concern only to those whose hearts Allah made heedless of His remembrance, and they follow their whims, turn away from the message of their Lord, and seek nothing but the life of this world; and that is the limit of their knowledge. Allah Almighty says: {So pay no heed to those who turn away from Our message and who only seek the life of this world.} [Surat an-Najm: 29] Allah Almighty also says: {Be patient with those who call upon their Lord morning and evening, seeking His pleasure. Do not turn your eyes away from them, desiring the adornments of the life of this world. And do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance, who follows his desires and whose affairs [deeds] are at loss.} [Surat al-Kahf: 28] Marginal remark/ The messengers are sent because the people changed the religion of Allah.
[121] The Fourth Aspect: Surprisingly, the Christians consider this to be oppression and injustice, whereas they ascribed to Allah such grave injustice that no one else among the nations did ever attribute to Him, and they reviled and cursed Him in a way that no one else among the nations did. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahih Collection" no. (2865). Narrated by Muslim no. (153).
They are among the furthest nations from His monotheism, glorification, and praise. They claim that when Adam ate of the tree, the Lord became angry at him and punished him, and this punishment continued with his offspring, until the Messiah came and was crucified; and that the offspring were in the confinement of Satan, and whoever of them dies, his soul goes to Hellfire in the confinement of Satan. They even said the same about the Prophets: Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and others. Marginal remark/ The falsity of the Qur’an's confirmation of the Christians' claim
It is well known that Abraham's father was a disbeliever, and Allah, nonetheless, did not hold him accountable for his father's disbelief; so, how could He hold him accountable for the sin of Adam, his farthest father?! This may have been the case if Adam had not repented. But Allah said that he did repent!
They also claim that Allah delivered Adam and his offspring from the punishment of Hell through crucifixion. This is one of the gravest sins and crimes. And He punished with it Satan, though Satan remains disobedient to Allah and deserving of punishment, since he refused to prostrate to Adam and whispered to him until the coming of the Messiah. Indeed, the Lord is able to punish him, and the children of Adam deserve no punishment for the sin of their father.
If they hold such superstitions, which are the laughingstock of rational people and cannot be ascribed to the most ignorant and unjust kings, how could they claim, nonetheless, that they describe Allah as just and say that, out of His justice, He would not command man to learn something within his ability and which achieves his wellbeing in this world and in the Hereafter; and they take this as a justification for rejecting His Book and messengers and insisting on altering the first Book and denying the other one and that it contains contradictions with Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets and messengers?!
The Christians say: Jesus, whom they regard as divine and human, enabled the disbelievers to crucify him to dodge the punishment of Satan.
They say: He hid himself from Satan so that he would not know.
They say: He enabled his enemies to seize him, beat him, spit on his face, put thorns on his head, and crucify him, and he exhibited fear from death, and called out: My Lord, why did you give my enemies power over me? so as to hide from Satan and not let him know that he is Allah or the son of Allah; and that Satan wants to take his soul to Hell, as he took the souls of Noah, Abraham, Moses, and other prophets and believers. In argument, the Lord said to him: Why did you deem it permissible, O Satan, to take my soul? Satan replied: [This is] because of your sin. He said: My human nature has no sin like the human nature of the prophets. If they have sins, they deserve thereby that their souls be taken to Hell. But I have no sin!
They say: When Allah established the argument against Satan, it became valid for the Lord to seize Satan, punish him, and deliver the offspring of Adam from being taken to Hell.
This speech includes too much falsehood and attribution of injustice to Allah. Whoever adopts this view does thus malign the knowledge, wisdom, and justice of the Lord in a way that no one else did.
The Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 414, 418).
Marginal remark/ The argument is established by the Qur’an against those who know the language.
Marginal remark/ The argument is established against the Christians more in Arabic than in other languages.
Marginal remark/ There is no contradiction between Allah's justice and requiring people to understand a message in a language other than theirs, for this lies within their ability. See: Minhāj As-Sunnah (1/134), (6/402), Tafsīr Āyāt Ushkilat (1/444), Jāmi‘ Ar-Rasā’il (1/121-142), and Majmū‘ Al-Fatāwa (1/219), (18/138).
See: Iqtidā’ As-Sirāt Al-Mustaqīm (1/527).
Marginal remark/ The Christians engaged in what is contrary to justice.
[Chapter Two: The Christians' claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) praised their religion, which entails adhering to it]
They say: "Then, we found in this Book reverence for Jesus Christ and his mother, as it says in Surat al-Anbiyā’: {And [remember Mary] who guarded her chastity; We breathed in her [garment] through Our spirit [Gabriel] and made her and her son a sign for all people.} [Surat al-Anbiyā’: 91] It also says in Surat Āl ‘Imrān: {And [remember] when the angels said: "O Mary, Allah has chosen you, purified you, and chosen you over all women."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 42] Along with the confirmation of the miracles of the Messiah and that his mother got pregnant with him without copulation with a man; rather, an angel from Allah gave her glad tidings about this; and that he talked while in the cradle and brought the dead back to life, healed the blind and the leper, and made from clay the figure of a bird, then breathed into it, and it became a bird by Allah’s permission, i.e., by the permission of the divinity, which is the word of Allah united within human nature.
We also found in the Book that Allah raised him up to Himself, as He says in Surat an-Nisā’: {But they certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157-158] In Surat Āl ‘Imrān, He says: {And [remember] when Allah said: "O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to Myself and deliver you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] And He says in Surat al-Baqarah: {We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 87] And in Surat al-Hadīd, He says: {Then We sent Our messengers in their footsteps, and We sent after them Jesus, son of Mary; We gave him the Gospel, and instilled kindness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. As for monasticism, they invented it – We did not prescribe it for them – seeking thereby Allah’s pleasure, yet they did not observe it faithfully. So, We gave those who believed among them their reward.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 27] He also says in Surat Āl ‘Imrān: {There are some among the People of the Book who are upright: they recite the verses of Allah during the night, and they prostrate. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and hasten in doing good deeds. They are among the righteous.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 113-114] We also found that it reveres our Gospel." [1] The Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 414-415).
[2] The response: Marginal remark/ The responses to the proofs of praising their religion
[The First Misconception: Revering the Messiah and his mother]
As for revering the Messiah and his mother, it is true, and so is the praise of those who adhered to his unaltered religion before he ﷺ was sent as a Messenger, or they remained in this religion until Muhammad ﷺ was sent, then they believed in him. Those are believers, Muslims, and guided people. The same holds true for those who adhered to the unaltered religion of Moses until the Messiah was sent as a Messenger, then they believed in him; those are believers, Muslims, and guided people.
Muslims are upright and moderate; they do not swerve to exaggeration or neglect. As for the Jews and the Christians, they are on two opposite extremes; those turn to one direction, and the others turn to the opposite direction, like in prohibition, purification, and impurity.
They are also different with regard to the Messiah:
The Christians say he is God, and they also say he is the son of God, and a complete God and a complete human.
The Jews, on the other hand, say he is an illegitimate child and the son of Joseph the Carpenter. They also describe him as a sorcerer and liar and accuse Mary of getting pregnant with him from adultery. Allah Almighty says: {And for their monstrous allegation against Mary.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 156]
As for the Muslims, they say: He is a servant and Messenger of Allah and His word which He bestowed upon Mary, the Virgin and the Chaste, and a spirit from Him; and he is honorable in this world and in the Hereafter and one of those near to Allah. They describe him as Allah describes him in His Book, not going to extremes like the Christians or failing to give him his due respect like the Jews.
This also applies to their opinion about all other prophets and messengers and the pious servants of Allah. The Jews killed the prophets and those who enjoined justice among people. As for the Christians: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31] Nevertheless, the Christians, like the Jews, also failed to give many of the prophets their due respect. They say, for example, that Solomon was not a prophet and that the disciples are like Moses and Abraham. They also say: Whoever acts upon the commandments of Allah becomes like the prophets and has the right to lay down legislations. Some Jews went to extremes regarding Ezra and said he is the son of Allah. Therefore, the Prophet (ﷺ) in an authentic Hadīth said: "Do not praise me as the Christians praised Jesus, the son of Mary, for I am only a servant of Allah. So, say: The servant and Messenger of Allah." Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3445).
He Almighty relates the story of Mary and the Messiah in [Surat Kāf Ha Ya ‘Ayn Sād] which He revealed in the early stage in Makkah within the chapters that mention the fundamentals of the religion over which the prophets agree. Then, He mentions it in Surat Āl ‘Imrān, one of the chapters revealed in Madīnah, in which He addressed those who followed the prophets among the People of the Book and the believers when the Najrān Christians came to the Prophet (ﷺ). So, the People of the Book are addressed in this chapter. Allah Almighty says: {Allah chose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of ‘Imrān above all people. They were descendants of one another. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. [Remember] when the wife of ‘Imrān said: "My Lord, I dedicate to You what is in my womb, so accept it from me, for You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." When she gave birth, she said, "My Lord, I have given birth to a female child," – and Allah knew best what she had given birth to – "and the male is not like the female. I have named her Mary, and I seek refuge with You for her and her offspring from Satan, the accursed."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 33-36]
In [the Two Sahīh Collections], Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "No human being is born except that the devil will touch him, so he raises his voice crying out because of the devil, except for Mary and her son." Then, Abu Hurayrah added: Recite, if you will: {And I seek refuge with You for her and her offspring from Satan, the accursed.} [4] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3431) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2366).
So, He Almighty mentions the story of Mary and the Messiah in these two chapters:
First: It was revealed in Makkah in the early stage, within the chapters paving the way for the fundamentals of the religion. This is Surat [Kāf Ha Ya ‘Ayn Sād].
Second: It was revealed in Madīnah after Allah Almighty gave His command for immigration and Jihad. That is why it contains debate and mubāhala (oath of condemnation) with the People of the Book. The command to conduct Jihad against them was also revealed in Surat al-Barā’ah. [5] That's Surat at-Tawbah.
In the Makkan chapter, He said that when she secluded herself for worship, Allah sent His Spirit to her, and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being. She said: {I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you; [do not approach me] if you fear Allah.} [Surat Mariyam: 18] Abu Wāi’l said: "She knew that he who fears Allah can be deterred." [6] [This means] that his fear of Allah [deters] him from illegal sexual relations, as she feared that he might want an illegal sexual relation. So, she said: I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you if you fear Allah. See: Tafsīr Ibn Abi Hātim (7/2403) and Tafsīr Ibn ‘Atiyyah (4/9).
He Almighty said: {I am only a messenger from your Lord so that He may grant you.} [Surat Maryam: 19] In another reading of the Qur’an: {to grant you a righteous son.} This Spirit, who appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being, informed her that he was a messenger from her Lord, which indicates that this Spirit is a separate entity, not a trait of something else, and that he was a messenger from Allah, not one of His attributes. Hence, the majority of scholars said that this was Gabriel (peace be upon him), for Allah calls him: {The Trustworthy Spirit.} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 193] He also calls him: {The Holy Spirit.} [Surat an-Nahl: 102]. And He calls him: {Gabriel.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 97]
Similarly, the People of the Book believe that he came, and assumed material form, from Mary and from the Holy Spirit. Their misguidance, however, lies in the belief that the Holy Spirit is the life of Allah, and that he is a god who creates, gives sustenance, and is worshiped. Nothing in the divine books or the prophets' words states that Allah called His attribute which exists as part of His Essence "the Holy Spirit" or called His speech or any of His attributes "a son".
This is one of the things that shows the misguidance of the Christians and that they distorted the prophets' statements and interpreted them in a way contrary to what the prophets intended. Their belief of the trinity is essentially based on a statement by the Messiah in one of the Gospels, saying: "Baptize the people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." [7] See: The Gospel of Matthew (19: 28).
We reply to them: This would apply if the Messiah did actually say this. Nothing in the Messiah's language or the language of any of the prophets indicates that they used to call an attribute of Allah that is part of His Essence or His word or life "a son" or "a Holy Spirit", or that they used to call His word "a son" or call Him "a son" or "a Holy Spirit". However, there are texts they transmitted from them pointing out that they used to call the chosen and honorable one "a son", a term used for the Messiah and others, just as they mentioned that Allah Almighty said to Israel: "You are My first-born son." [8] See: Book of Exodus (4: 22).
"The Holy Spirit" refers to the Spirit that descends upon the prophets, as was the case with David and others. It is mentioned in their books that the Holy Spirit was in David and others and that the Messiah said to them: "My Father and your Father, and my God and your God." [9] So, he called Him "Father" for all. The Messiah was not particularly called "the son" among them, nor did they use the word "the son" except as a name for a created being, not a name for any of Allah's traits. Nor was it mentioned in the books of the prophets that a trait of Allah was generated from him. See: Gospel of John (20: 17).
If this is the case, it indicates then that the word [the son] does not mean the old and eternal word of Allah which they say was generated from Allah, in their belief, even though it is eternal; and that the [Holy Spirit] is not the life of Allah. Rather, the son refers to the Messiah's human nature, and the Holy Spirit refers to the revelation sent down to him and the angel bringing it down. So, He commanded them to believe in Allah and His Messenger and in what He sent down to His Messenger and the angel who came down with it. All the prophets were given this command. The Messiah did not possess any particular trait by which he deserved to have something of divinity. But the light of Allah and His word and spirit appeared in him, just as they appeared in the other prophets and messengers. It is also well known that others, according to the texts they transmitted about the prophets, are also called sons and the Holy Spirit dwelled in them.
The bottom line here is that the prophets' words confirm one another, and the Christians do not possess any verbal or rational argument that agrees with what they invented in religion. But they interpreted the prophets' speech in a way contrary to its connotation. In their Gospel, He said: "No one knows the Hour, not even the angels or the Son himself, only the Father knows it alone." [10] So, He pointed out that [the Son] does not know the Hour, which indicates that [the Son] is not the ancient and timeless one; rather, he is created and temporal. [11] See: Gospel of Matthew (24: 36) and Gospel of Mark (13: 32). Then, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) pointed out that the reason behind the Christians' confusion and contradiction in this respect is that they cannot correctly deal with the issue of "things ascribed to Allah Almighty." The ascribed things are of two types: First: ascribed attributes: This is when the ascribed thing is a trait that cannot stand alone, like knowledge, ability, and speech. Second: ascribed entities: This is when the ascribed thing is a separate entity, like the house of Allah, the she-camel of Allah, and the servants of Allah. Hence, the Christians' confusion and contradiction becomes clear as they regard the "word of Allah" as an eternal and timeless attribute that came out of Him, considering it to be the son of Allah, and treat this attribute as a god, a creator; and that this word is the Messiah (peace be upon him). By considering the "word of Allah" to be the Messiah (peace be upon him), they thus made this word a separate entity, which is wrong. Indeed, Allah's speech falls under the first category: an ascribed attribute. The attribute of "Allah's speech" is not a created entity that is separate from Him. Ascribing the Messiah (peace be upon him) to Allah Almighty in the texts they transmit falls under the ascribing of entities. This ascribing signifies the honor given to the Messiah (peace be upon him), as Allah granted him such attributes that entailed ascribing the Messiah to Him. However, nothing in ascribing the Messiah (peace be upon him) to Allah entails him to be a god or the son of Allah. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (1/360-369).
[The Second Misconception: The Messiah's miracles]
As for their statement: "And it became a bird by Allah's permission, i.e., by the permission of the divine nature, which is the word of Allah united in the human nature."
If they made this statement as their own belief, without saying that Muhammad intended this, we would discuss it with them and clarify its error, rationally and textually.
But their statement that Muhammad (ﷺ) used to say that the intended meaning is the permission of the divine nature which is the word of Allah that is united in the human nature is clear falsehood attributed to Muhammad (ﷺ). This is similar to their statement: His words: {Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have blessed} [Surat al-Fātihah: 6-7] By this, He meant: the Christians. This is also similar to them saying: His words: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 86] By this, He meant from among the Arabs. And this is like their statement: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] By this, He meant: the disciples. It is also akin to their statement: {Alif Lām Mīm. This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 1-2] By this, He meant: the Gospel.
These places where they interpreted the Qur’an and alleged that Muhammad (ﷺ), who explained to the people what was sent down to them, intended by what he recited from the Qur’an these meanings which they mentioned, constitute clear falsehood which points to the utmost ignorance of those who say this, or indicates their utmost stubbornness. But it is not strange that such interpretation should come from the Christians, for they interpreted numerous portions of the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and other scriptures in a manner like these interpretations, whereby they plainly distorted the words brought by the prophets taking them out of context. Thus, they altered the books of Allah and His religion and emulated the Jews who distorted and altered, albeit a different book.
Their distortion of the Qur’an is like their distortion of the Torah and the Gospel. They are among those who leave the definite verses and follow the ambiguous ones, seeking discord and seeking their false interpretation. In these places, however, they distorted the definite verses whose meanings are clear and cannot indicate anything else. So, they were so ignorant and obstinate that they went farther away from what is right than those who distorted the meanings of the ambiguous verses.
This is because it is known by necessity in the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ) that he used to say: Indeed, the Messiah is a servant of Allah and a created being like the other messengers; and that he declared as disbelievers those Christians who say he is Allah or the son of Allah. Allah Almighty says: {Those who say, "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary," have certainly disbelieved. Say: "Who has the power to prevent Allah, if He chose to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and all those who are on earth?" To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth and everything between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is Most Capable of all things.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17]
Allah Almighty also says: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three." None has the right to be worshiped except One God. If they do not desist from saying this, those who disbelieve from among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment. Why do they not turn to Allah in repentance and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. There were messengers who passed away before him, and His mother was a woman of truth; they both ate food. See how We make Our signs clear to them yet see how they are deluded! Say: "Do you worship besides Allah that which can neither harm nor benefit you?! And Allah is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." Say: "O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73-77]
So, He mentions the disbelief of the Christians by their statement "He is Allah" twice and states that the Messiah is but a messenger before whom other messengers passed away, and his objective is the message, as He says about Muhammad (ﷺ): {Muhammad is no more than a messenger; there were messengers who passed away before him.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 144] And his mother's objective was to become a woman of truth, which indicates that she was not a prophet. Then, He says: {They both ate food.} This is one of the clearest traits that negate divinity, given the need for food to go into his bowels and the subsequent excrements that would come out of him.
The Almighty Lord is the One, the Eternal Refuge, Who neither begets nor is He begotten, and there is none comparable to Him; whereas the Christians say: He begets and is begotten, and there is a comparable to Him.
He informs about the servitude of the Messiah in more than one place. For example, He says: {When the example of the son of Mary was given, your people laughed and jeered, and they said: "Are Our gods better or he?" They only mentioned him to you for the sake of argument. They are indeed a contentious people. He was only a slave whom We favored and made him an example for the Children of Israel.} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 57-59]
Allah Almighty also mentions that the first thing uttered by the Messiah was his statement: {I am a slave of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.} [Surat Maryam: 30]
And Allah Almighty says: {When Allah will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell people, ‘Take me and my mother as gods besides Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory be to You! It is not for me to say what I have no right.'"} until the words: {And You are a Witness over all things.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 116-117] Allah Almighty also says: {O People of the Book do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about Allah but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say “Three” [Trinity]. Cease: that is better for you. Indeed, Allah is the only One God. Glory be to Him, [far exalted is He] to have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of Affairs. The Messiah would never disdain to be a slave of Allah, nor would the nearest angels to Him. Those who disdain to worship Him and are arrogant, He will gather them all together before Him. As for those who believe and do righteous deeds, He will give them their rewards in full and will increase them out of His bounty. But those who disdain and act arrogantly, He will subject them to a painful punishment, and they will not find for themselves any protector or helper besides Allah.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171-173]
If it is known by necessity from the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ), the mass transmission from him, and by the consensus among his Ummah - a consensus based on the transmission from him, the Book revealed to him, and his well-known Sunnah - that he used to say that the Messiah is a servant and Messenger of Allah; that he is none but a Messenger; and that he declared as disbelievers the Christians who say that he is Allah and the Son of Allah, and those who say Allah is the third of three and so on; then their interpretation of the words of Allah which His Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) conveyed: {And it became a bird by Allah’s permission.} "That's by the permission of the divine nature which is the word of Allah united with human nature" is clear falsehood attributed to Muhammad (ﷺ).
This is one of the things all people of the world recognize as the falsehood they attribute to Muhammad (ﷺ) - all those who are familiar with Muhammad's life, whether they acknowledge his prophethood or deny it.
The bottom line here is that those people who ascribed falsehood to Muhammad (ﷺ) is plain and known to everyone, including the believers and disbelievers in him - it is not a hidden falsehood, even if what they said happened to be possible and reasonable. What if it is clearly unreasonable?! Indeed, it is an unreasonable statement. In other words, establishing it in reality is unreasonable, even though what they invent can be realized and it shows the defectiveness of their minds, like those who make all the other wrong and contradictory statements, which cannot be established in reality.
Their statement "by the permission of the divine nature which is the word of Allah united in human nature" is invalid, [because] this word is either Allah or a trait of His Essence, or it is neither His Essence nor a trait of His, or [it is] both the Essence and the trait together.
As it is not the Essence of Allah or His trait, and it is not both the Essence and the trait, it is then separate from Him and part of His creation, and it is not a divine being or a creator. Then, no divine nature united with the Messiah; rather, nothing united with him, and if anything united with him, it could only be a created being.
If the word is the Essence or the Essence and the trait, then it is the Lord of the worlds, and it is the Father, in their belief. Whereas they agree that the Messiah is not the Father, and the Father did not unite with him, it was the Son who did.
Even if the word was a trait of Allah Almighty, the trait of Allah is not the Creator God, whereas the Messiah, in their belief, is the Creator God.
Moreover, the trait of Allah is inseparable from His Essence and it does not depart from His Essence and indwell and unite with anyone else; while in their belief, the Word of Allah united with the Messiah.
If they say: We said this as a group of Muslims say that the Qur’an, the Torah, or the Gospel indwelled the reciters or united with them, and the Eternal God indwelled in created beings and united with them, and so on.
We say: If the statement of those people was right, it would not constitute an argument for them. This is because, based on this opinion, there would be no difference between the Messiah and all those who recite the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the Qur’an; whereas you claim that the Messiah is Allah or the Son of Allah and that this exclusively applies to him, to the exclusion of others.
Also, these people and all communities agree that none of the reciters of the Qur’an and other divine books is Allah, the Son of Allah, or a Creator of the world. So, if you say as these people, this entails that the Messiah is not Allah, the Son of Allah, or Lord of the world.
Also, we do not know that any of these people said that the divine nature united with human nature, that the Eternal God united with a created being, or that the speech of Allah and the creation became one thing. Unity is invalid, by consensus among those and others. A group of them, however, began to use the term "indwelling", and another group rejected this term, saying: Rather, we say that the Eternal God appeared in the created one, not that He indwelled in him. Yet, they said something that entails indwelling.
The earlier Muslims and most of their scholars regard those as wrong and point out their error in rational and textual terms. Their view is not held by any of the leading Muslim scholars or by any prominent Muslim groups, like the Mālikiyyah, the Shāfi‘iyyah, the Hanbaliyyah, the Thawriyyah, the Dāwūdiyyah, and the Is'hāqiyyah, or by any of the Muslim scholastic groups, neither those who affiliate themselves to Sunnis, like the Ash‘ariyyah and the Karrāmiyyah, or others, like the Mu‘tazilah and the Shiites.
This view was only held by a small group of Muslim scholars, like a few scholars belonging to the Mālikiyyah, the Shāfi‘iyyah, and the Hanbaliyyah. At most, those people would say there is indwelling of one of Allah's attributes.
Likewise, those who said that the Lord indwelled in the servant and united with him among the extremist sects affiliated to Shi‘ism, Sufism, or others are misguided like the Christians. Nonetheless, the Christians have no valid argument against them, as what they said does not apply to the Messiah exclusively; rather, it applies both to him and others among the prophets and the righteous. The Christians claim that the unity happened to the Messiah only, even though the one united with human nature - he and the human nature became one thing. With unity, it is not possible for any of them to have an action or a trait apart from the other. The Christians claim the unity and then they say contradictory things. Some of them say: One Essence. Others say: Two Essences. Some others say: One will. And some of them say: Two wills.
[The Third Misconception: That Allah put the Christians above the Jews]
Regarding the verse that reads: {O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to Myself and deliver you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] This is true, as informed by Allah. Whoever follows the Messiah (peace be upon him), Allah puts them above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection, and those who follow his unaltered religion, Allah puts them above the Jews. Also, the Christians are above the Jews who disbelieve in him until the Day of Judgment.
As for the Muslims, they are believers in him, not disbelievers. Rather, when the Christians altered his religion, and Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with the religion of Allah with which He sent the Messiah and other prophets, and the Messiah gave glad tidings of a messenger after him whose name will be Ahmad, the Ummah of Muhammad (ﷺ) became more rightful in following the Messiah than the Christians who changed his laws and denied what he prophesied. So, Allah put Muhammad and his Ummah above the Christians until the Day of Judgment, as He also put them above the Jews until the Day of Judgment. In [the Two Sahīh Collections], Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, we, the community of the prophets, have one religion. The closer among people to the Son of Mary is indeed me, for there is no prophet between me and him." [12] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3442) and Muslim "Sahīh Collection" no. (2365).
And Allah Almighty says: {He has prescribed for you [believers] the same religion which He enjoined upon Noah, and that which We have revealed to you [O Prophet] and that which We enjoined upon Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: "You should uphold the religion and make no divisions therein."} [Surat ash-Shūra: 13] Allah Almighty also says: {O messengers, eat from the lawful things and act righteously, for I am All-Knowing of what you do. Indeed, this religion of yours is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me. But people split up their religion into factions, each faction rejoicing in what it has.} [Surat al-Mu’minūn: 51-53]
Whoever has more perfect faith in Allah and His messengers is worthier of Allah's help, for Allah Almighty says in His Book: {We will surely help Our messengers and those who believe in the life of this world and on the Day when the witnesses will come forward.} [Surat Ghāfir: 51] Allah Almighty also says: {Our Word has already been given to Our slaves, the messengers, that it is surely they who will be given victory, and that Our soldiers will surely be the victors.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 171-173]
The Jews denied the Messiah and Muhammad (peace be upon both of them). Allah Almighty says regarding them: {How miserable is the price for which they sold their souls – disbelieving in Allah’s revelation out of jealous hatred that Allah would send down His grace to whom He wills of His slaves. Thus, they have incurred wrath upon wrath.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 90] The first wrath is incurred by their disbelief in the Messiah, and the second wrath is incurred by their disbelief in Muhammad (ﷺ).
After the abrogation and alteration, the Christians are no longer followers of the Messiah. They, however, are more rightful in following him than the Jews, who went to extremes in denying and cursing him. They denied him first and then denied Muhammad (ﷺ). So, they became more remote from following the Messiah than the Christians. Hence, they were put above the Jews and supported against them.
The Muslims, on the other hand, are supported against the Jews and the Christians, as they believe in all the Books and messengers of Allah and do not deny any of His books or disbelieve any of His messengers. Rather, they observe Allah's commandment, as He says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136] Allah Almighty also says: {The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, as do the believers. All of them believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers, [saying]: "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say: "We hear and obey. Grant us Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 285]
As the Muslims are the followers of all the messengers of Allah, the Messiah and others, and Allah promised to support the messengers and their followers, the Prophet (ﷺ) said in an authentic Hadīth: "A group of my Ummah will continue to be triumphant on the true path, and they will not be harmed by those who disagree with them or those who forsake them, until the Hour is established." [13] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3641), and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1037).
He (ﷺ) also said: "I asked my Lord that He should not make my Ummah be overcome and destroyed by an enemy from other than them, and He granted me that." to the rest of the Hadīth [14]. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2889) and by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (22553).
All that they cited as an argument in their favor is an argument against them, not for them.
[The Fourth Misconception: Supporting the Messiah (peace be upon him) with the Holy Spirit]
Regarding the verse that reads: {We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 87] This is true, as informed by Allah.
Allah Almighty mentions about supporting Jesus, the son of Mary, with the Holy Spirit in several places. In Surat al-Baqarah, Allah Almighty says: {We gave Moses the Scripture and sent a succession of messengers after him. We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 87]. Allah Almighty also says: {We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 253]. And Allah Almighty says: {O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110]
In other verses, Allah Almighty says: {When We replace one verse with another – and Allah knows best what He sends down – they say: "You are just making it up." In fact, most of them have no knowledge. Say: "This has been brought down by the Holy Spirit from your Lord with the truth."} [Surat an-Nahl: 101-102] Allah Almighty also says: {Which the Trustworthy Spirit [Gabriel] has brought down to your heart [O Prophet] so that you may be one of the warners.} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 193-194]
So, the Holy Spirit who came down with the Qur’an from Allah is the Trustworthy Spirit, and that is Gabriel.
In the "Sahīh Collection", Abu Hurayrah reported that he heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say to Hassān ibn Thābit: "Respond on my behalf. O Allah, support him with the Holy Spirit!" [15] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3212) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2485).
In the "Sahīh Muslim Collection" and other Hadīth collections, ‘Ā’ishah reported: I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say to Hassān ibn Thābit: "Indeed, the Holy Spirit will continue to support you as long as you defend Allah and His Messenger." [16] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2490).
In "the Two Sahīh Collections", Al-Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib reported: I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say to Hassān ibn Thābit: "Lampoon them, and Gabriel is with you." [17] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3213) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2486).
This is Hassān ibn Thābit, one of the believers. When he defended Allah and His Messenger and lampooned the polytheists who denied the Messenger, Allah supported him with the Holy Spirit, i.e. Gabriel (peace be upon him).
The people of the world know that Muhammad (ﷺ) did not make the divine nature united with the human nature of Hassān ibn Thābit. So, it was known that his statement that Allah supported him with the Holy Spirit did not entail the unity of the divine nature with human nature. And it was also known that support from the Holy Spirit is not an exclusive merit for the Messiah, something acknowledged by the People of the Book, and that other prophets were also supported with the Holy Spirit, like David. They even say: The disciples had the Holy Spirit among them.
It was established, by consensus among the Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians, that the Holy Spirit lies in persons other than the Messiah and even other than the prophets. The bottom line here is to demonstrate their lies about Muhammad (ﷺ).
[The Fifth Misconception: Praising monasticism]
Regarding the verses that read: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs and sent down with them the Scripture and the criteria of justice, so that the people may uphold justice. And We sent down iron, in which there is great might and benefits for people, so that Allah may make known those who help His cause and His messengers without seeing Him. Indeed, Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty. We sent Noah and Abraham, and gave prophethood and Scripture to their offspring: some among them are guided, but most of them are evildoers.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25-26] This is true, as stated by Allah Almighty. However, this does not include praise of monasticism or of those who altered the religion of the Messiah. Rather, it praises those who follow him with kindness and mercy that Allah put in their hearts. Allah Almighty says: {And We instilled kindness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 27]
This act of giving, instilling, or ordaining, which is negated as regards religious innovations, is affirmed regarding the prescribed things. Allah Almighty says: {To each of you We have ordained a law and a way of life.} [Surat al-Ma’idah: 48] Allah Almighty also says: {For every community We ordained ways of worship which they follow.} [Surat al-Hajj: 67]
[18] Then, Allah Almighty says: {As for monasticism, they invented it – We did not prescribe it for them.} In other words, they invented monasticism which We did not prescribe for them. Allah did not ordain this monasticism, and He did not make it legitimate for them. Rather, He negates that He ordained it, as He negated the same from what the polytheists invented, saying: {Allah did not ordain any such thing as the Bahīrah, Sā’ibah, Wasīlah, and Hām [camels dedicated to idols].} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 103] So, they invented monasticism. Allah did not legislate it. Marginal remark/ The sound interpretation of the monasticism mentioned in Surat al-Hadīd
There are two scholarly views regarding His words [19]: See: The Meanings of the Qur’an by Az-Zajjāj (5/130), Al-Idāh Al-‘Adudi by Abu ‘Ali al-Fārisi (p. 31), Al-Bahr Al-Muhīt (24/202), and Mughni Al-Labīb (6/209). Az-Zajjāj said: "This verse is difficult to interpret."
First: Its location in the [Arabic] sentence denotes that they invented it, with a hidden pronoun referring to his people and companions, as explained by the subsequent words.
Or it is said that this is an inward and outward act, a view held by the Kufi scholars as reported from them by Ibn Jarīr, Tha‘lab, and others.
Similar to this is the verse that reads: {He admits whom He wills into His mercy, but for the wrongdoers He has prepared a painful punishment.} [Surat al-Insān: 31] And the verse that reads: {A group He has guided, and another group deserved to go stray.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 30]. Based on this opinion, monasticism is not mentioned in connection to kindness and mercy.
Second: It is connected to kindness and mercy. Thus, Allah instilled in their hearts kindness, mercy, and invented monasticism. In this case, this act of instilling or putting is a cosmic one, which comprises goodness and evil. This is like the verse that reads: {We made them leaders calling to the Fire.} [Surat al-Qasas: 41]. According to this opinion, there is no praise for monasticism by putting it into people's hearts.
So, it is established, according to both opinions, that there is no praise for monasticism in the Qur’an.
Then, He says: {Except to seek thereby Allah’s pleasure.} In other words, only the pursuit of Allah's pleasure was prescribed for them, and Allah's pleasure should be pursued by observing His commands, not by following invented matters. This exception is similar in style to the verse that reads: {They have no certain knowledge other than conjecture.} [20] [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] [This] is the most correct opinion regarding this verse. The meaning cannot be that Allah prescribed it for them in pursuit of Allah's pleasure, for Allah does not do anything in pursuit of His own pleasure. Neither can the meaning be that they invented it in pursuit of Allah's pleasure. This view and that one are mistakenly held by some people. See examples of detached exception in the Qur’an: [Surat ad-Dukhān: 56], [Surat al-Wāqi‘ah: 25-26], and [Surat al-Inshiqāq: 20-25].
He mentioned that they invented monasticism and did not observe it faithfully. This does not include praise for them; rather, it signifies dispraise. Then, Allah Almighty says: {So We gave those who believed among them their reward.} They are those who believed in Muhammad (ﷺ). {But most of them are evildoers.}
If it meant: those who believe in the Messiah as well, it would mean those who follow his unaltered religion; otherwise, they all say that they believe in the Messiah.
In any case, Allah Almighty only praised those who follow the Messiah and his unaltered religion and those who believe in Muhammad (ﷺ). He did not praise the Christians who altered the religion of the Messiah or those who did not believe in Muhammad (ﷺ).
If it is said: Some people say: Allah's words: {As for monasticism, they invented it.} are connected to {Kindness and mercy} Thus, it means that Allah instilled into the hearts of those who followed him kindness, mercy, and monasticism, which they invented. They regarded this instillation as legitimate and praiseworthy.
It will be said: This is wrong, for some reasons:
One reason: That monasticism did not exist among all those who followed him. Rather, those who accompanied him, like the disciples, included no monk. Monasticism was invented thereafter. By contrast, kindness and mercy were instilled into the hearts of all those who followed him.
Another reason: That He said they invented monasticism, unlike kindness and mercy, which they did not invent; if they had invented monasticism, He would not have prescribed it for them.
If the intended meaning is the Shar‘i, religious instillation, not the universal and fateful one, monasticism does not fall under that. And if the intended meaning is the instillation related to creation and the universe, this does not contain praise for monasticism.
Another reason is that Allah instilled kindness and mercy into people's hearts, and monasticism is not related to the heart; rather, it is about abandoning lawful things such as marriage, meat, and so on.
As a group of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) determined to engage in monasticism, Allah Almighty forbade them by revealing the verse that reads: {O you who believe, do not prohibit the good things that Allah has made lawful for you, and do not exceed the limits, for Allah does not like those who exceed the limits.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 87]
It is narrated in the Two "Sahīh Collections" that someone among a group of the Prophet's Companions said: As for me, I will fast and not break my fast. Another one said: As for me, I will stand in prayer during the night and not sleep. Another one said: As for me, I will not marry women. And another one said: As for me, I will not eat meat. Thereupon, the Prophet (ﷺ) stood up to deliver a speech and said: "What is the matter with people who say such and such? But I fast and break my fast, I pray and sleep, I marry women, and I eat meat. So, whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not one of me." [21] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (5063) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1401), with this addition: "Another one said: As for me, I will not eat meat." This is the narration by Muslim. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) would generally cite this Hadīth with this wording in his books. See: As-Siyāsah Ash-Shar‘iyyah (p. 183), Minhāj As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah (7/491), Al-Istiqāmah (1/340), and other books. In his commentary on Al-Muwatta’, Ibn al-‘Arabi mentioned it and attributed it to Al-Bukhāri. See: Al-Qabas Fi Sharh Muwatta’ Mālik ibn Anas (p. 678).
It is narrated in "Sahīh Al-Bukhāri" that the Prophet (ﷺ) saw a man standing in the sun, and he said: "What is this?" They said: "This is Abu Isrā’īl. He made a vow to stand in the sun and not go in the shade, not to speak, and to fast." Thereupon, he said: "Order him to sit down, go into the shade, and speak, and let him complete his fast." [22] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6704).
It is narrated in the "Sahīh Muslim Collection" that the Prophet (ﷺ) used to say in his sermon: "The best speech is the speech of Allah, and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad; and the evilest matters are those newly introduced in religion, and every newly-introduced matter in religion is misguidance." Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (867).
In "the Sunan Collection", Al-‘Irbād ibn Sāriyah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Hold fast to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-guided Caliphs after me. Bite onto it with your molar teeth. Beware of newly- introduced matters (in religion), for every newly-introduced matter is misguidance." [24] Narrated by Abu Dāwūd in his "Sunan Collection" no. (4607) and by At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (2676).
The authentic texts point out that monasticism is a newly-introduced matter and misguidance. Thus, it is not guidance and Allah did not ordain it in the sense that He prescribed it, just as He did not ordain what was prescribed by the polytheists, such as the Bahīrah, Sā’ibah, Wasīlah, and Hām (animals dedicated to idols).
If it is said: Some say: It means [25]: They did not do it except to seek thereby Allah's pleasure; we did not prescribe it for them except in pursuit of Allah's pleasure. Some others say: They did not do it or did not invent it except to seek thereby Allah's pleasure [26]. i.e., the verse. There is ambiguity in this phrase, and it can be clarified thus: This verse, as mentioned by Ibn Juzai al-Kalbi in his tafsīr, is subject to two opinions, based on the type of exception used therein. The first opinion is: that the exception is disconnected, in which case the meaning will be that monasticism was not prescribed for them, but they performed it on their own accord, thereby seeking the pleasure of Allah. The second opinion is: that the exception is connected, in which case the meaning will be that monasticism was prescribed for them. Ibn Juzai favored the first opinion, for Allah says after "monasticism" - {they invented it} - and because Ibn Mas‘ūd used to read it: "But they invented it". See: At-Tas'hīl Li ‘Ulūm At-Tanzīl (4/1498). Most exegetes of the Qur’an adopt this view. None of them mentioned that Allah prescribed monasticism for them. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) saw the exception as disconnected, thus regarding the second opinion as completely wrong. He even stated that it is apparently wrong, for nothing in the verse indicates that Allah prescribed it for them, or to complete it or observe it faithfully. Rather, the verse reveals that it is they who invented something Allah did not prescribe for them. As for the first opinion mentioned by the exegetes based on the view that the exception is disconnected, they say: They invented monasticism in pursuit of Allah's pleasure. So, they regard {seeking thereby Allah’s pleasure} as the reason behind their invention of it. Ibn Taymiyyah, on the other hand, held that this meaning is wrong, saying that the verse means: "They invented monasticism which We did not prescribe for them. But We prescribed for them the pursuit of Allah's pleasure." We will come to this text soon. This meaning was mentioned by Abu Mansūr al-Azhari in his book: "Tahdhīb Al-Lughah" (6/156).
It will be said: Both opinions are wrong, though the first one is more apparently wrong. Allah did not prescribe monasticism for them. Rather, He did not legislate it as an obligation or as a desirable thing. However, some hold the view that when they invented it, Allah prescribed its completion for them [27]; but nothing in the verse indicates this, as Allah Almighty says: {We did not prescribe it for them – except to seek thereby Allah’s pleasure.} He does not mention that He prescribed for them this monasticism or its completion or observance. But He mentions that they invented it and did not observe this invented thing faithfully. This was stated by Al-Hasan al-Basri and Yahya ibn Sallām. See: Tafsīr Al-Qur’an Al-‘Azīz by Ibn Abi Zamanayn (4/356).
As for the opinion that says: They did not do it except to seek thereby Allah's pleasure. This meaning, if indicated by the words, would not contain praise for monasticism. If a person does something Allah did not command him to do - rather, He forbade him from doing it - with good intention, the best he could get is to be rewarded for his good intention, not to be rewarded for something he was prohibited from or something not obligatory or recommended. So, what about if this is not indicated by the verse?! Indeed, Allah Almighty says: {We did not prescribe it for them – except to seek thereby Allah’s pleasure.} He did not say: [They did not do it except to seek thereby Allah's pleasure] Or [They did not invent it except to seek thereby Allah's pleasure].
If it is said: Allah's words: {Yet they did not observe it faithfully.} indicate that if they had observed it faithfully, they would have been praised.
It will be said: Nothing in these words indicates this. Rather, they indicate that their lack of observance makes them worthy of dispraise which they would not otherwise deserve. So, the dispraise for someone who invented something and did not observe it faithfully is greater than the dispraise for someone who observed it, albeit none of them is praised; rather, both are dispraised. This is like the Christians of Banu Taghlib and others who converted to Christianity and did not observe its duties. Rather, they took from it what accorded with their inclinations. Hence, their disbelief was worse, and their dispraise was greater than those who are less wicked. Indeed, Hellfire has different levels of depth, just as Paradise has varying degrees.
Also, when Allah prescribes something for His servants, He does not prescribe it in pursuit of His own pleasure; rather, it is the people who do what they do in pursuit of Allah's pleasure.
Also, saying that monasticism is specifically prescribed in pursuit of Allah's pleasure, to the exclusion of other things, is groundless, for He did not say that He prescribed what He mentioned first in pursuit of His pleasure; so, what about monasticism?
This shows that the view we have mentioned is the correct one, and that it is a detached exception, meaning: They invented monasticism which We did not prescribe for them. But We prescribed for them the pursuit of Allah's pleasure. Indeed, pleasing Allah is due and obligatory for the people, and it is achieved by observing His commands and prohibitions, not by doing what He did not enjoin people to do or abandoning what He did not prohibit people from abandoning. Monasticism involves doing what He did not command and abandoning what He did not prohibit.
[The Sixth Misconception: Praising the Christians for being righteous]
Regarding the verses that read: {Yet all are not alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright: they recite the verses of Allah during the night, and they prostrate. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and hasten in doing virtuous deeds. They are among the righteous.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 113-114] This verse does not specifically pertain to the Christians, yet it comes after the verses that read: {You are the best nation ever raised for mankind: you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If the People of the Book had believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are believers, but most of them are rebellious. They can never harm you except for some annoyance. But if they fight you, they will turn their backs, then they will not be helped. They are afflicted with humiliation wherever they may be unless they are protected by a covenant from Allah or a treaty from the people. They have incurred Allah’s wrath and are afflicted with destitution. That is because they disbelieved in Allah’s verses and killed the prophets unjustly. That is because of their disobedience and transgression.} Then, Allah Almighty says: {Yet all are not alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 110-113]
It is well known that the description occurring in these words: {That is because they disbelieved in Allah’s verses and killed the prophets unjustly.} is that of the Jews. And also, these words: {And they are afflicted with destitution.} So, His subsequent statement: {There are some among the People of the Book} must be referring to the Jews.
The Muslims and the Christians agree that the Jews, who disbelieve in the Messiah and Muhammad (peace be upon both of them), have no believer among them; this is known by necessity in the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ). If the verse referred to the Christians, they would be subject to the same ruling that applies to the Jews. This verse addresses the Jews more than it addresses the Christians.
On the other hand, another verse reads: {Among the people of Moses there is a community which guides others with truth and [they] establish justice therewith.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 159] This constitutes general praise for whoever adheres to the Torah. It contains no praise for anyone who disbelieves in the Messiah or praise for anyone who disbelieves in Muhammad (ﷺ).
This is clear from the context of the speech, for Allah Almighty says: {You are the best nation ever raised up for mankind: you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.} Then, Allah Almighty says: {If the People of the Book had believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are believers, but most of them are rebellious.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 110] So, He put them under two categories: believers and rebellious, who are the majority of them.
And His words: {Some of them are believers} refer to those of them who had been believers before Muhammad's mission, just as they are referred to in the verse that reads: {And We instilled kindness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him.} To the words: {But most of them are evildoers.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 27]
And also the verse that reads: {We sent Noah and Abraham and gave prophethood and Scripture to their offspring: some among them are guided, but most of them are evildoers.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 26] And the verse about Abraham that reads: {We blessed him and Isaac, but among their offspring were some who did good and some who clearly wronged themselves.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 113]
Then, after He says: {But most of them are rebellious.} He says: {They are afflicted with humiliation wherever they may be unless they are protected by a covenant from Allah or a treaty from the people. They have incurred Allah’s wrath and are afflicted with destitution. That is because they disbelieved in Allah’s verses and killed the prophets unjustly. That is because of their disobedience and transgression.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 111-112]
Their affliction with humiliation wherever they go, their incurring of Allah's wrath, their killing of the prophets, and their disobedience and transgression had all been a description characterizing the Jews before Muhammad's mission. Allah Almighty says in Surat al-Baqarah: {And [remember] when you said: "O Moses, we cannot bear the same meal. So, call upon your Lord to bring forth for us from what the earth produces – its herbs, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions." Moses said: "Would you exchange what is better for what is inferior? Go down to any town and you will have what you have asked for." They were struck with humiliation and destitution and incurred the wrath of Allah. That was because they used to reject the signs of Allah and kill the prophets unjustly. That was because they disobeyed and were transgressors.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 61]
Subsequently, Allah Almighty says: {The believers and those who were Jews, Christians, and the Sabians [before Muhammad] – whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteous deeds, they will have their reward with their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 62] So, the verse addresses the followers of all the four religions who adhere to them before they were abrogated or altered.
Likewise, the verses in Surat Āl ‘Imrān describe the People of the Book by what characterized most of them before Muhammad's mission - disbelief. Allah Almighty says: {Yet all are not alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright: they recite the verses of Allah during the night, and they prostrate. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and hasten in doing virtuous deeds. They are among the righteous.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 113-114]
This applies to those of them who fit this description before their religion was abrogated, for they were following the true religion which was not altered or superseded. This is similar to the verse that reads: {Among the people of Moses there is a community which guides others with truth and [they] establish justice therewith.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 159] {We scattered them through the land in communities – some of them were righteous and others were less so. We tested them with both prosperity and adversity, so that they would return [to Allah’s Obedience]. They were then succeeded by other generations who inherited the Scripture, opting for the lowly gains, and saying: "We will be forgiven." Yet if a similar gain comes their way, they will seize it. Was not a covenant of the Scripture taken from them that they should not say about Allah except the truth, and they had studied its teachings? But the Home of the Hereafter is better for those who fear Allah. Do you not understand? As for those who hold fast to the Scripture and establish prayer, We will not let the reward of those who seek righteousness to be lost.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 168-170]
Allah Almighty says in general terms: {And among those whom We created is a group that guides others with the truth and establishes justice therewith.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 181] Allah Almighty informs about those who possessed these traits before Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission, and whoever of them lived until Muhammad's mission and believed in him will have a double reward.
Allah Almighty praises those who believed among the People of the Book. Allah Almighty says: {There are some among the People of the Book who believe in Allah and what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell Allah’s verses for a small price. It is they who will have their reward with their Lord. Indeed, Allah is swift in reckoning.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 199]
Most of the scholars stated that this other verse from Surat Āl ‘Imrān was revealed concerning the Negus [28] and others who believed in the Prophet (ﷺ) but could not immigrate to him or apply the laws of Islam, because the people of their country were Christians, and they would not accept the dominance of the laws of Islam. See: Tafsīr ‘Abdur-Razzāq (1/431).
It was said: The Prophet (ﷺ) offered the funeral prayer for him when he died for this reason, as there was not a large number of people who would openly perform the funeral prayer for him in a large dominant gathering, as Muslims usually do with regard to their funerals.
That is why he was considered to be among the People of the Book, though he believed in the Prophet (ﷺ), like those who believed in the Prophet (ﷺ) in the land of war and cannot immigrate to the land of Islam or apply the apparent laws of Islam; rather, they apply what they can and are excused from what they cannot.
In a Hadīth narrated by Hammād ibn Salamah, Thābit ibn Anas reported: When the Negus died, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Ask for Allah's forgiveness for your brother." Thereupon, some people said: You command us to ask for Allah's forgiveness for that infidel who died in the land of Abyssinia! So, the following verse was revealed: {There are some among the People of the Book who believe in Allah and what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 199] It was mentioned by Ibn Abi Hātim and others with their chains of transmission [29]. See: Tafsīr Ibn Abi Hātim (3/846).
Hammād ibn Salamah reported from Thābit from Al-Hasan al-Basri that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Ask for Allah's forgiveness for your brother the Negus." He said something similar [30]. See: Tafsīr Ibn Abi Hātim (3/846).
Also, a group of exegetes mentioned that Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, Ibn ‘Abbās, Anas, and Qatādah said: This verse was revealed with regard to the Negus, the Abyssinian king, who was called As-hamah, and in Arabic ‘Atiyyah. When he passed away, Gabriel reported his death to the Prophet (ﷺ) on the day he died. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to his Companions: "Go out and offer the prayer for a brother of yours who died in a land other than your land." They said: "Who is he?" He said: "The Negus." So, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) went out to Al-Baqī‘. [31] See: Tafsīr Ath-Tha‘labi (9/586).
Some of them included this addition: The land of Abyssinia was disclosed for him from Madīnah and he saw the bed of the Negus and offered the prayer for him, made four takbirs (saying: Allah is the Greatest), and asked for Allah's forgiveness for him. And he said to his Companions: "Ask for Allah's forgiveness for him." Thereupon, the hypocrites said: Look at this. He prays for a Christian Abyssinian infidel whom he had never seen and who was not following his religion. So, Allah Almighty revealed this verse: {There are some among the People of the Book who believe in Allah and what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell Allah’s verses for a small price. It is they who will have their reward with their Lord. Indeed, Allah is swift in reckoning.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 199]
A group of the scholars held the view that it was revealed regarding those who had followed the religion of the Messiah (peace be upon him) until Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent as a Messenger, so they believed in him - as reported from ‘Atā’. [32] See: Tafsīr Ath-Tha‘labi (9/587).
Some other scholars were of the opinion that it was revealed concerning all the believers among the People of the Book. [33] See: Tafsīr At-Tabari (6/330), Tafsīr Ath-Tha‘labi (3/238), and Asbāb An-Nuzūl by Al-Wāhidi (p. 140), reported from Mujāhid and favored by Ibn Jarīr.
The first opinion is more correct [34]. Whoever believes in Muhammad (ﷺ) in an open manner - while living in the land of Islam and doing what the Muslims do inwardly and outwardly - is one of the believers, even if he was previously a polytheist who worshiped idols. So, what if he was one of the People of the Book?! This is like ‘Abdullāh ibn Sallām, Salmān al-Fārisi, and others. See: Minhāj As-Sunnah (5/114-121).
Those are not described as among the People of the Book, just as the Muhājirūn (migrants) and the Ansār (helpers) are not described as polytheists and idol worshipers. Moreover, none of the hypocrites or others may object to the Muslims offering the funeral prayer for any one of them, unlike the case when people outwardly belong to them and are inwardly believers.
There are many people of this kind in the land of the Christians. They conceal their belief, either altogether or from the general public only and disclose it to their kith and kin. Such people may fall under the verse that reads: {There are some among the People of the Book who believe in Allah} To the end of the verse. [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 199] Those people do not abandon belief in the Book of Allah and in His Messenger in return for money, as done by many rabbis and monks, who consume people's money unjustly and bar them from the path of Allah and prevent them from believing in Muhammad (ﷺ).
[The Seventh Misconception: Praising the churches of the Christians]
They said: "Then, we found that he revered our Gospel, gave precedence to our monasteries, honored our places of worship, and testified that the name of Allah is often mentioned therein. This is like the verse that reads: {If Allah were not to repel some people by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques wherein the name of Allah is often mentioned.} [Surat al-Hajj: 40] [35] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 415).
The answer: It contains mention of the monasteries and churches. As for His statement: {Wherein the name of Allah is often mentioned.} It follows mention of the mosques, and mosques belong to the Muslims. It does not refer to churches of the Christians.
Also, His statement: {Wherein the name of Allah is often mentioned}: either refers to the mosques only, in which case it does not state that Allah's name is often mentioned in the monasteries and churches; or it means that Allah's name is mentioned in all of them. Undoubtedly, the monasteries and churches, before Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ), used to contain followers of the unaltered religion of the Messiah, and the name of Allah would often be mentioned therein.
It was said: The name of Allah is often mentioned therein after the abrogation and alteration of the religion. Allah loves that His name is to be mentioned.
Ad-Dahhāq said: [Indeed, Allah loves that His name is mentioned, even if partners are associated with Him.] In other words, a person who associates partners with Him is better than one who denies His existence and does not mention His name in any case.
The People of the Book are better than the polytheists. So, the Prophet's Companions were annoyed and upset by the Persians' [victory] over the Christian [Romans], because the Christians are closer to the religion of Allah than the Magi.
The messengers were sent to achieve benefits, complete them, end evils, and reduce them, and they would prioritize the greater of two good things over the less of them, as much as possible, and ward off the worse of two evils by the less of them. Hence, demolishing the monasteries and churches of the Christians is evil in case this is done by the Magi and polytheists. But if the Muslims demolish them and turn their places into mosques wherein Allah's name is often mentioned, this is good and beneficial.
This verse occurs within the context of giving permission to the Muslims to engage in Jihad, as Allah Almighty says: {Permission [to fight] is given to those who are attacked, because they were oppressed, and Allah is indeed Most Capable of granting them victory.} [Surat al-Hajj: 39] This was the first verse revealed on Jihad. That is why Allah Almighty said: {Those who have been driven out of their homes for no reason other than they say: "Our Lord is Allah."} Then, Allah Almighty said:
{If Allah were not to repel some people by means of others.} [Surat al-Hajj: 40] So, Allah repels the disbelievers by the believers and repels the worse of two groups by the better of them, as He repelled the Magi by the Christian Romans and then repelled the Christians by the believers, Muhammad's Ummah - as Allah Almighty says in Surat al-Baqarah: {And David killed Goliath, and Allah gave him the kingdom and wisdom and taught him whatever He willed. Were it not for Allah to repel some people by others, the earth would be filled with corruption, but Allah is All-Gracious to the worlds.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 251]
[This shows] that they have no argument in anything brought by Muhammad (ﷺ). Rather, what he (ﷺ) came with constitutes an argument against them in various ways.
They said: "This and other things made it incumbent upon us to hold onto our religion and not to neglect what we have or reject our doctrine, and to follow none but Jesus Christ, the word of Allah and His spirit, as well as his disciples whom he sent to us." [36] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 415).
The answer: They used two void arguments:
The First Argument [37]: That Muhammad (ﷺ) was not sent to them, but to the Arabs. It has become clear that using this argument is one of the worst lies and fabrications about Muhammad (ﷺ), for he never said: I was not sent to the People of the Book; neither did he ever say: I was not sent except to the Arabs. Rather, the texts mass transmitted from him, and his actions point out that he was sent to all people of the world, including those who had a divine book and those with no book. See: Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 414, 418). The first chapter includes refutation of this argument.
The Second Argument [38]: Their statement that Muhammad (ﷺ) praised the religion of the Christians after it was altered and abrogated. This too is a lie about him and worse than the previous one. See: Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 415, 417). The second chapter includes refutation of this argument.
How would He praise them while He declares them disbelievers in a number of places in His Book, enjoins Jihad and fighting against them, harshly dispraises those who did not take part in Jihad against them, and describes those who did not deem to obey Him with regards to fighting them as hypocrites and disbelievers, and states that they will enter Hellfire?!
He reported all of this from Allah and mentioned it by way of conveying the message of his Lord. Indeed, it is attributed to him because he conveyed and communicated it, not because he created or originated it - as Allah Almighty says: {Indeed, this is the word of a noble Messenger, and it is not the word of a poet; little do you believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer; little do you take heed! It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.} [Surat al-Hāqqah: 40-43]
As for Allah and His Messenger praising the Messiah and his mother, and praising those who follow his unaltered religion, this is true, and it does not contradict the obligation upon those to whom Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent to follow him.
If we suppose that the Messiah's laws were not altered and that Muhammad (ﷺ) praised all those who followed them, and he nonetheless said: [Indeed, Allah has sent me to you], he would not be contradictory; and if he declared disbelievers those who did not believe in him, this would not contradict his praise of them before they denied him; he only praised those who followed a religion that was not altered. As for those who altered the religion of the Messiah, He did not praise them; rather, He dispraised them, as Allah Almighty says: {And from among those who say, "We are Christians," We took a covenant from them, but they forgot a part of what was enjoined upon them. So, We induced hostility and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 14]
We have previously mentioned that the Christians disbelieved as the Jews disbelieved. They disbelieved by altering what is in the first book and by denying the second book. But, as for those who did not alter the book or lived until Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission and believed in him, they are believers.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the Messiah revered the Torah, followed it, and acted upon its laws more than Muhammad's (ﷺ) reverence for the Gospel. Nonetheless, this did not release the Jews from the obligation to follow the Messiah. So, how would Muhammad's (ﷺ) reverence for the Gospel release the Christians from the obligation to follow him?!
[The Eighth Misconception: Praising the disciples]
As for their statement: "And his disciples whom he sent to us warned us in our languages and handed our religion over to us, which is revered in this book by His statement in Surat al-Hadīd: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs and sent down with them the Scripture and the criteria of justice, so that the people may uphold justice.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] And He says in Surat al-Baqarah: {Then Allah sent prophets with glad tidings and warnings, and sent down to them the Scripture in truth, to judge between people in matters over which they disputed.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 213]
By "His prophets who gave glad tidings and His messengers and so on" [39], He meant the disciples, who wandered across the seven regions of the world and gave glad tidings about the single book, namely the pure Gospel. This is because if He meant Abraham, David, Moses, and Muhammad, He would have said "sent down to them the Scriptures", because each one of them came with a separate book. He only said, "the single Scripture", because no group of people giving glad tidings came with one book except for the disciples, who came with the pure Gospel. -
The Qur’an also reads: {A man came from the farthest end of the city, rushing, and said: "O my people, follow the messengers."} [Surat Yāsīn: 20] He meant the disciples. He did not say: "A messenger." Rather, He said: "The messengers." [40] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, (p. 415); the text in the epistle is in an abridged form.
The response comprises several aspects:
[41] The First Aspect: There is nothing in what was mentioned or anything else that entails denial of the Messenger who was sent to you and to others and your adherence to an altered and abrogated religion. Likewise, nothing in the reverence for Moses and the Torah and those who followed Moses entails denial by the Jews of the Messenger who was sent to them and their adherence to an altered and abrogated religion. Marginal remark/ The Christians have no proof that entails denial of the Prophet.
[42] The Second Aspect: Their statement, "We do not follow but the Messiah and his disciples" is void, for they neither follow the Messiah nor his disciples, for two reasons: Marginal remark/ The invalidity of their following of the Messiah and the disciples
The First Reason: Their religion was altered. It is not entirely about the Messiah and the disciples. Rather, most of their legislations, or many of them, do not pertain to the Messiah and the disciples.
The Second Reason: The Messiah gave glad tidings about Ahmad, as Allah Almighty says: {And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel, I am truly a messenger of Allah to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger after me whose name will be Ahmad."} [Surat as-Saff: 6] So, if they did not follow Ahmad, they would be denying the Messiah. [43] The Christians have many texts containing prophecies about our Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and other prophets.
[44] The Third Aspect: Their statement about the disciples "that they are the messengers revered in this Book" is void, and with it they interpreted the Qur’an in a wrong way. This is like their interpretation of {those whom You have blessed} as referring to the Christians and their interpretation of {with My permission} that he breathed into it and it would become a bird by the permission of the divine being, which is the Word of Allah united with the human being. And their interpretation of {Alif Lām Mīm. This is the Book} as referring to the Gospel. And their interpretation of {who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them} as referring to the Christians. And their interpretation of {Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner} as referring to the Christians, and {unless with those of them who transgress} as referring to the Jews. [45] There are other examples of their interpretation of the Qur’an in the same way they interpret the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms by distorting the words out of context, deviation concerning the verses of Allah, and ascribing falsehood to the prophets in a manner clear to everyone who ponders this that it is lying about the prophets. Marginal remark/ The invalidity of their interpretation of the verses See: Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 416, 418).
Its invalidity is apparent from various aspects:
The First Aspect: That Allah Almighty says: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs and sent down with them the Scripture and the criteria of justice, so that the people may uphold justice. And We sent down iron, in which there is great might and benefits for people, so that Allah may make known those who help His cause and His messengers without seeing Him. Indeed, Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] His statement {We have sent Our messengers} uses the word "messengers" in plural and possessive form, comprising all those sent by Allah Almighty.
The Second Aspect: That the most entitled messengers to this ruling are those whom Allah named in the Qur’an, as Allah Almighty says: {We have sent revelation to you [O Prophet] just as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. We also sent revelation to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and We gave David the Psalms. There are messengers whose stories We have already mentioned to you, and messengers We have not mentioned to you. And Allah spoke to Moses directly. These messengers were sent as bearers of glad tidings and as warners, so that the people may have no excuse before Allah after [the coming of] the messengers. For Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 163-165]
About the Messiah (peace be upon him), Allah Almighty says: {The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. There were messengers who passed away before him, and His mother was a woman of truth.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 75] So, He says that the Messiah is one of those messengers; before him messengers had passed away; and before him, He sent a messenger to every community.
Abu Dharr reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said that the prophets are one hundred and twenty four thousand and the messengers among them are three hundred and thirteen [46]. Some scholars regard this Hadīth as authentic and some others classify it as weak. If it is authentic, then the messengers amount to three hundred and thirteen; and if its authenticity is not known for sure, then the messengers may reach that number or a greater one, and they may also be less in number. Indeed, Allah Almighty says that He sent to every community a messenger. Allah Almighty says: {We have sent you with the truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. There has never been any community except that a warner came to it.} [Surat Fātir: 24] The Prophet (ﷺ) is reported to have said: "You will complete seventy nations, of which you are the most honorable and the best in the sight of Allah." [47] This is a good Hadīth. Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (22719) and by At-Tabarāni in "Al-Kabīr Collection" no. (7871). Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (7080) and by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (20269).
Before the Messiah, Allah sent many messengers to all communities. So, how could it be alleged that the following verse means: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] That they are only the disciples who were sent by the Messiah?!
Even though the disciples, the Messiah's messengers, were like the messengers of Moses and Abraham and the messengers of Muhammad (ﷺ). Whoever the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent, the people had to obey him in what he conveyed from the Messenger of Allah. In [the Two Sahīh Collections], the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allah, and whoever obeys the leader appointed by me has obeyed me. Whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allah, and whoever disobeys the leader appointed by me has disobeyed me." [48] He pointed out that the leader appointed by him should be obeyed in good things enjoined by Allah and His Messenger, not in everything. So, in conveying the teachings of the Messiah, the disciples are like the companions of all the other prophets in this regard. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2851) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4788).
This shows that the messengers mentioned by Allah in the verse that reads: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] are all the Messengers Allah Almighty sent, and the most entitled among them to that are the Messengers that Allah informed in the Qur’an that He sent to His servants. This reveals the invalidity of their statement that they are the disciples.
The Third Aspect: That He Almighty says: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs and sent down with them the Scripture and the criteria of justice, so that the people may uphold justice. And We sent down iron, in which there is great might and benefits for people, so that Allah may make known those who help His cause and His messengers without seeing Him. Indeed, Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] He states that He sent down iron so that it may become apparent who engages in Jihad in the cause of Allah with iron; whereas the Christians allege that the disciples and the Christians were not commanded to fight anyone with iron. [49] Gospel of Matthew (5: 38-44).
The Fourth Aspect: That He says thereafter: {We sent Noah and Abraham and gave prophethood and Scripture to their offspring: some among them are guided, but most of them are evildoers. Then We sent Our messengers in their footsteps, and We sent after them Jesus, son of Mary; We gave him the Gospel, and instilled kindness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 26-27] And He informs that He sent Noah and Abraham after saying: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs.} by way of mentioning what is specific after what is general and demonstrating the special rulings distinguishing what is specific from others falling under what is general. This is like the sultan when he commands the soldiers to go for Jihad and then commands particular individuals to do particular things. This is also similar to saying: He sent his messengers to so-and-so and so-and-so, and then he sent so-and-so to them and commanded him to do such-and-such.
Allah Almighty says: {We sent Noah and Abraham, and gave prophethood and Scripture to their offspring.} Noah is the father of human beings who came after the flood. Allah drowned the children of Adam except for the inhabitants of the ark. About Noah, Allah Almighty says: {And We made his offspring the only survivors.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 77]
And He made the prophets after Abraham from his offspring. About Abraham, Allah Almighty says: {We gave him Isaac and Jacob, and assigned prophethood and scripture to his offspring, and gave him his reward in this life, and in the Hereafter, he will surely be among the righteous.} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 27]
After mentioning that He sent Noah and Abraham, Allah Almighty says that He placed the prophethood and the scripture in their offspring: {Then We sent Our messengers in their footsteps, and We sent after them Jesus, son of Mary; We gave him the Gospel.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 27]
So, Allah Almighty said that He sent His messengers in their footsteps and sent, after them, Jesus, son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. Those were messengers before the Messiah, and the last of them was the Messiah. He did not mention that He sent any of the followers of the Messiah. Rather, He said that He placed kindness and mercy into the hearts of those who followed him. So, how is it acceptable to say He meant the disciples as the messengers He sent with clear proofs including the Scripture and the criteria of justice, and not the messengers He mentioned and sent before the Messiah?!
The Fifth Aspect: That no verse in the Qur’an states that the disciples are the messengers of Allah, and Allah Almighty does not mention in the Qur’an that He sent them. However, He says in Surat Yāsīn: {Give them an example of the People of the Town when the messengers came to it. When We sent them two [messengers], but they rejected them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said: "We are sent to you as messengers." They said: "You are no more than human beings like us, and the Most Compassionate has not sent down anything. You are simply lying." They said: "Our Lord knows that we are sent to you as messengers. Our duty is only to convey the message clearly." The people said: "We consider you as an evil omen. If you do not desist, we will surely stone you, and we will inflict upon you a painful punishment." The messengers said: "Your evil omen is with yourselves [because of your disbelief]. Is it because you are admonished? Rather, you are a people who transgress all bounds." A man came from the farthest end of the city, rushing, and said: "O my people, follow the messengers."} [Surat Yāsīn: 13-20]
This is the speech of Allah, and it does not state that those messengers were from the disciples or that those to whom they were sent did believe in them; and it informs that the people to whom those three were sent were hit with a single blast from Allah and they were immediately extinguished.
A group of exegetes said that those were from the disciples and the village is Antioch, and that this man is called Habīb an-Najjār. Some of them said that the Messiah sent them during his lifetime. It is well-known among the Christians, however, that the people of Antioch believed in the disciples and followed them [50]. Allah did not destroy the people of Antioch. On the other hand, the Qur’an indicates that Allah destroyed the people of this man who believed in the messengers. See: Acts of the Apostles (11: 26).
Also, the Christians say that they came to the people of Antioch after the Messiah had been raised up and that those who came were two persons, not three. One of them is said to be Shamoun as-Safa and the other Paul. [51] According to the Acts of the Apostles (11: 25), the two persons who went to Antioch were Barnabas and Saul (Paul).
They say that the people of Antioch believed in them, but they do not mention Habīb an-Najjār or the coming of a man from the farthest end of the city. Rather, they say that Shamoun and Paul invoked Allah until He brought the king's son back to life.
The transmitted information with the Christians is that those messengers mentioned in the Qur’an are not the disciples. This is the more correct of the two views held by the Muslim scholars. The leading exegetes [52] stated that the messengers mentioned in the Qur’an in Surat Yāsīn are not from the disciples; rather, they were before the Messiah, and they gave them names other than the names of the disciples, according to Muhammad ibn Is'hāq. This was stated by Ibn al-Jawzi in [Zād Al-Masīr] (7/11) and favored by Ibn ‘Atiyyah in [Al-Muharrar Al-Wajīz] (7/239) and Abu Hayyān in [Al-Bahr Al-Muhīt] (18/82) and supported by Ibn Kathīr in [Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr] (6/573).
Ar-Rabī‘ ibn Anas reported that Abu al-‘Āliyah said regarding the verse: {Give them an example of the People of the Town when the messengers came to it. When We sent them two [messengers], but they rejected them, so We strengthened them with a third}: This is to make the argument against them stronger. They went to the people of the town and called them to believe in Allah alone and worship Him with no partner, but they rejected them. They passed by a man in an area of the town in farmland belonging to him. The man asked them: Who are you? They said: We are the messengers of the Lord of the worlds. We were sent to the people of this town to call them to worship Allah alone with no partner. He asked them: Do you ask for a wage in return for this? They said: No! Thereupon, he threw away what was in his hand and went to the people of the town. {A man came from the farthest end of the city, rushing, and said: "O my people, follow the messengers. Follow those who ask no recompense of you, and who are guided."} [53] See: Ad-Durr Al-Manthūr (12/335).
This is the correct opinion. Those messengers were messengers of Allah before the Messiah, even if they were sent to Antioch. The people of Antioch remained polytheists until some of the disciples went to them, and they believed in the Messiah at their hands and embraced the religion of the Messiah.
Antioch is said to be the first of major cities to believe in the Messiah (peace be upon him), after he was raised up to heaven. Yet, some of the exegetes thought that the messengers mentioned in the Qur’an are the messengers of the Messiah and belong to the disciples, which is wrong, for a number of reasons:
One reason is that Allah mentions in His Book that He destroyed the people to whom those messengers went; whereas, the people of Antioch, when some people came to them and called them to the religion of the Messiah, they believed and were not destroyed.
Another reason is that the messengers mentioned in the Qur’an are three, and a man came to them rushing from the farthest end of the city; whereas the followers of the Messiah who went to this city were two, and no man came to them rushing, neither Habīb nor anyone else.
Moreover, the exegetes mentioned two views over whether "the messengers" were sent by Allah or by the Messiah: First: That it was Allah Who sent them. Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi said: [This is the apparent indication from the Qur’an]; a view reported from Ibn ‘Abbās, Ka‘b, and Wahb ibn Munabbih.
He said: The exegetes commented on His statement: {It was no more than a single blast.} [Surat Yāsīn: 29], saying: Gabriel seized the two doorjambs of the city's gate and gave one shout at them, and they immediately died, leaving behind no trace of life, like a fire that was extinguished. This is the meaning of His statement: {And immediately they were extinguished.} i.e., they are as still as dormant ashes. [54] Zād Al-Masīr by Ibn al-Jawzi (7/14).
It is well known that the people of Antioch did not suffer this fate after the Messiah was sent; rather, they believed before his religion was altered and were Muslims and believers in him and following his religion, until his religion was altered after that.
This is indicated, among other things, by the fact that it is well known among the scholars that, after the Torah was sent down, Allah did not destroy the disbelievers among the communities by a heavenly punishment that would engulf them, as He destroyed the people of Noah, ‘Ād, Thamūd, the people of Lot, Pharaoh, and others. Rather, He commanded the believers to conduct Jihad against the disbelievers, as He ordered the Children of Israel, through Moses, to fight the tyrants. And Allah destroyed the people of this town by a heavenly punishment, which indicates that those messengers mentioned in Surat Yāsīn were before Moses (peace be upon him).
Moreover, Allah does not mention in the Qur’an a messenger who was sent by anyone other than Him. He only mentions the messengers that He Himself sent.
Also, Allah Almighty says: {When We sent them two [messengers], but they rejected them, so We strengthened them with a third.} [Surat Yāsīn: 14] So, He says that He sent them as He said that He sent Noah, Moses, and others. The following verse reads: {They said: "You are no more than human beings like us, and the Most Compassionate has not sent down anything."} [Surat Yāsīn: 15] Such is the response by the polytheists to someone who says that Allah sent him and sent down the revelation to him, not to someone who came as a messenger from a Messenger. He subsequently says: {Alas for the humans! No messenger ever comes to them, but they ridicule him.} [Surat Yāsīn: 30] This applies to the messengers who came to them from Allah, not from His Messengers.
Also, Allah set this as an example to the people to whom He sent Muhammad (ﷺ), warning them that Allah might take revenge from them as He took revenge from those people. When an example is to be given concerning Muhammad, it should be set with a messenger like him, not with people who are less in merit than his own Companions. Indeed, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, and ‘Ali are better than the disciples, by consensus among the Muslim scholars.
Allah did not send a messenger after the Messiah. Rather, He made this period an interval. Allah Almighty says: {O People of the Book, there has come to you Our Messenger, making things clear to you, after an interval between the messengers.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 19]
Allah Almighty also says: {When We sent them two [messengers], but they rejected them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said: "We are sent to you as messengers." They said: "You are no more than human beings like us."} [Surat Yāsīn: 14-15] If they were the messengers of a Messenger, the denial would be directed at the one who sent them, and their statement "You are no more than human beings like us" would not be strange, for no one denies that the messengers of Allah's Messengers are humans; but they denied that the Messenger of Allah should be a human.
Also, if the denial was directed at both of them and they were the messengers of a Messenger, they could say: Communicate with the one who sent us or with his companions, for they know our truthfulness in conveying the message from him; unlike the case if they were the Messengers of Allah.
Also, His statement: {When We sent them two [messengers]} [Surat Yāsīn: 14] It explicitly indicates that Allah is the One Who sends. If someone else sends messengers, then they are sent by this person, not by Allah. Just as it is not said to those sent by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (ﷺ): that they are the messengers of Allah. It is not said that Dihyah ibn Khalīfah al-Kalbi was sent by Allah; neither can this be said regarding others like Al-Mughīrah ibn Shu‘bah and ‘Abdullāh ibn Hudhāfah, who were sent by the Messenger (ﷺ). The Prophet (ﷺ) sent his messengers to the rulers of the world. He sent Dihyah ibn Khalīfah al-Kalbi to Caesar, ‘Abdullāh ibn Hudhāfah to Khosrau, and Hātib ibn Abi Balta‘ah to Al-Muqawqis.
It is well known that those are not said to be sent by Allah or called "the messengers of Allah" among the Muslims, and it is not permissible, by consensus among the Muslims, to say that those people fall under Allah's words: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] If the messengers of Muhammad (ﷺ) are not described as "Messengers of Allah" in the Book that he came with, how could it be possible to give this description to the messengers of another Messenger?!
The objective here is to clarify the meanings of the Qur’an and what Allah Almighty intends by His words: {When the messengers came to it. When We sent them two [messengers].} [Surat Yāsīn: 13-14] Does Allah, and His Messenger Muhammad (ﷺ), mean those who were sent by Allah or those who were sent by His Messenger? It was known with certainty that Muhammad (ﷺ) did not engage in such a thing. So, whoever says that Muhammad (ﷺ) intended by this the messengers sent by a Messenger has thus lied about him, intentionally or by mistake.
What I have mentioned shows the invalidity of their view regarding the interpretation of the verse in Surat al-Baqarah: {Then Allah sent prophets with glad tidings and warnings, and sent down to them the Scriptures in truth, to judge between people in matters over which they disputed.}
They said: "By His prophets who gave glad tidings and His messengers and so on [39], He meant the disciples, who wandered across the seven regions of the world and gave glad tidings about the single book, namely the pure Gospel. This is because if He meant Abraham, David, Moses, and Muhammad, He would have said "sent down to them the Scriptures", because each one of them came with a separate book. He only said "the single Scripture", because no group of people giving glad tidings came with one book except for the disciples, who came with the pure Gospel." [55] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 415).
We say to them:
Allah Almighty says: {Mankind was just one nation.} i.e., they fell into dispute. {Then Allah sent prophets with glad tidings and warnings.} The disciples were not among the prophets, even if the Messiah sent them. That he sent them does not entail that they were prophets, like those who were sent by Moses and Muhammad and other messengers. Hence, the Christians mostly call them "messengers" and not "prophets".
Also, He Almighty says: {And He sent down with them the Scripture.} No scripture was sent down with the disciples. But the Scripture was sent down to the Messiah. Yet, a type of scripture was also sent down with the prophets. The word "scripture" is a name for this type of thing; so, it applies to all the revealed scriptures. This is similar to the verse that reads: {But righteousness is to believe in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Scripture, and the prophets.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 177] And the verse that reads: {All of them believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 285] In another reading: {And His Book and messengers.} Likewise, Allah Almighty says about Mary: {And she firmly believed in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures.} [Surat at-Tahrīm: 12] In another reading: {And His Scripture.}
Allah Almighty also says: {Mankind was just one nation. Then Allah sent prophets with glad tidings and warnings.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 213] Allah Almighty also says in Surat Yūnus: {The whole mankind was but a single community, then they differed.} [Surat Yūnus: 19] This indicates that when the children of Adam differed, Allah sent the prophets, and their difference was before the time of Noah, as Ibn ‘Abbās said: "There were ten generations between Adam and Noah, all of them were upon Islam, and then polytheism emerged among them." [56] Tafsīr At-Tabari (23/639) and Tafsīr Ibn Abi Hātim (2/377).
Furthermore, the Gospel does not contain judgment among the people regarding matters over which they disputed. Rather, it mostly comprises admonitions, commandments, and the reports about the Messiah. By contrast, the Torah and the Qur’an contain judgments regarding matters over which the people disputed - which does not exist in the Gospel.
Also, Allah Almighty says: {But none disputed thereafter except out of arrogance after they had received the clear proofs. Then Allah, by His grace, guided those who believed to the truth in which they disputed.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 213] This means that Allah guided those who believed, after the dispute among those who were given the Book, out of arrogance, to the truth in which they disputed. The Christians fall under this dispraise among those who were given the Book. If the intended book was the Gospel, they alone would be subject to the dispraise, to the exclusion of others, which is not the case. Rather, the Jews and others who are in dispute are also dispraised. The praised ones here are the believers whom Allah guided to the truth in which those people disputed, by His permission. This certainly includes the Ummah of Muhammad (ﷺ) and may include all those who believed from among the previous nations, like those who followed the religion of Moses, the Messiah, and Abraham. Allah Almighty says: {The believers and those who were Jews, Christians, and the Sabians [before Muhammad] – whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteous deeds, they will have their reward with their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 62]
As for the Ummah of Muhammad (ﷺ), Allah guided them to the truth in which the preceding nations disputed, by His permission. This is clear. They are following the truth, justice, and the moderate course between the two ends of invalidity. This is apparent in their adherence to the truth in which the Jews and the Christians disputed, in terms of monotheism, the prophets, information about events, the legislations, the abrogation, the lawful and unlawful, the belief and denial, and so on.
Then, they said about the Qur’an [57]: that it testifies for them that they are supporters of Allah, as it reads: {As Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: "Who will be my supporters for Allah’s cause?" The disciples said: "We are the supporters for Allah’s cause." Then a group of the Children of Israel believed and another disbelieved. We then supported those who believed against their enemies, so they prevailed.} [Surat as-Saff: 14] See: Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 415).
We say to them: This is true, and the disciples were believers and Muslims, and they were the supporters of Allah. But nothing in this states that they were the messengers of Allah or that the religion you are following was taken from them; and nothing of this indicates that any of the disciples was infallible. Rather, Allah commanded the believers among the Ummah of Muhammad (ﷺ) to be the supporters of Allah, as the Messiah asked for the same, by saying: {Who will be my supporters for Allah’s cause?} [Surat as-Saff: 14]
Allah Almighty describes the Prophet's Companions among the people of Madīnah as supporters, as He says: {As for the first forerunners of the Emigrants and the Helpers, and those who followed them in righteous deeds, Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 100] The Muhājirūn (the Emigrants) were more meritorious than the Ansār (the Helpers), and they were also supporters of Allah, who supported Him as the Ansār did. But because they were characterized by a peculiar description, being the Muhājirūn, the other name was used for the Ansār.
The Muhājirūn and the Ansār are more meritorious in the sight of the Muslims than those who believed in Moses and those who believed in Jesus. Nonetheless, they regard none of them as a prophet or a messenger, they only included messengers of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).
[The Ninth Misconception: Revering the Gospel]
They said: "As for his reverence for our Gospel and the books in our hands, He says: {We have revealed to you [O Prophet] the Book in truth, confirming the scriptures that came before it.} [Surat al-Ma’idah: 48]. And in Surat Āl ‘Imrān, Allah Almighty says: {Alif Lām Mīm. Allah: none has the right to be worshiped except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining. He has sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming what came before it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel previously, as guidance for people.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 1-4]
Allah Almighty also says in Surat al-Baqarah: {Alif Lām Mīm. This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous, who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them, and those who believe in what has been sent down to you [O Prophet] and in what was sent down before you, and in the Hereafter, they believe with certainty. It is they who are upon guidance from their Lord, and it is they who are successful.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 1-5] By the Book, He means the Gospel. And {who believe in the unseen} are us, the Christians, who believed in the Messiah and did not see him. Then, He subsequently says: {And those who believe in what has been sent down to you [O Prophet] and in what was sent down before you.} By this, He means the Muslims, who believed in what he came with and what came before him.
And He says in Surat al-Mā’idah: {And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that came before him, and We gave him the Gospel that contained guidance and light, confirming what came before it in the Torah, a guidance and admonition for the righteous. Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the rebellious.} [Surat al-Ma’idah: 46-47] And He says in Surat Āl ‘Imrān: {Then if they reject you [O Prophet], there were messengers who were rejected before you, who came with clear proofs, written ordinances [the Psalms of David], and the enlightening Scripture.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 184] By the enlightening Scripture, He also means the Holy Gospel.
He also says: {If you are in doubt about what We have sent down to you [O Prophet], then ask those who read the Scripture before you. The truth has surely come to you from your Lord, so never be of those who doubt.} [Surat Yūnus: 94]
This establishes what we have and negates from our Gospel and the books in our hands the accusations, the alterations, and the changes, given its confirmation of it." [58] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 415).
In response - After knowing that the verse in Surat al-Mā’idah reads: {We have revealed to you [O Prophet] the Book in truth, confirming the scriptures that came before it and as a criterion over them.} - We say: As for the confirmation by the final Messenger Muhammad (ﷺ) of the books Allah revealed before him and the prophets who came before him, this is known by necessity from his religion and mass transmitted in an apparent way, similar to the mass transmission of the fact that he was sent to all mankind.
This is part of the fundamentals of faith. Allah Almighty says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted." If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136-137] Allah Almighty also says: {Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit."} [59] [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 84]. This is supported by other verses in the Qur’an. See for example: [Surat al-Baqarah: 177, 285-286].
His confirmation of the Torah and the Gospel is mentioned in a number of verses in the Qur’an. Allah Almighty says: {We have revealed to you [O Prophet] the Book in truth, confirming the scriptures that came before it and as a criterion over them.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 48] Allah Almighty also says: {Allah has sent down the best message – a consistent Book of repeated lessons.} [Surat az-Zumar: 23] In another verse, Allah Almighty says: {We relate to you [O Prophet] the best of stories through Our revelation of this Qur’an.} [Surat Yūsuf: 3]
He points out that this Qur’an is a criterion over the books that preceded it. A criterion means a witness, an entrusted one, a judge. It confirms the truth contained in these books and negates what is distorted therein, and it approves what Allah approves of their rulings and abrogates what Allah abrogates of them. In this, it is entrusted with these books.
He says that it is the best message and contains the best stories, which indicate that whoever adhered to the Torah, before abrogation or alteration of any of its rulings, is among the people of faith and guidance. Likewise, whoever adhered to the Gospel, before abrogation or alteration of any of its rulings, is among the people of faith and guidance. This comprises no praise for those who adhere to an altered religion, let alone an abrogated and altered religion, and they do not believe in the messengers and the books Allah sent to them. Rather, Allah Almighty points out in a number of verses that the Jews and the Christians became disbelievers by altering the former book and refraining from the belief in Muhammad (ﷺ).
As for their interpretation of His words {That is the Book} as referring to the Gospel and that {Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them} refers to the Christians. This falls under the distortion of words by taking them out of context and the alteration of Allah's speech, as they did with the verse that reads: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85] and His words {With My permission); i.e., with the permission of the divine nature. And His words: {Guide us to the straight path.} This is in addition to other verses of the Qur’an which they cited and interpreted in a way contrary to the meaning intended by Allah.
This affirms that they did the same with the Torah and the Gospel. If they alter the meanings of the Qur’an and distort its words by taking them out of context, though its interpretation and intended meanings are well known among the people of knowledge as well as the general public, and it was mass transmitted from the Messenger (ﷺ) until its meanings became necessary knowledge, what can they do then with the Torah and the Gospel while their meanings and words were not transmitted like the Qur’an, and the adherents of these books include no one who comes forward to defend their words and meanings as the Muslims defend the words and meanings of the Qur’an?!
Those people misunderstood the phrase {That is the Book}, thinking that because the word 'that' points to something not present, it refers to the Gospel!
We say to them: This is like His verse that reads: {That is what We recite to you of the verses and the wise reminder.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85] The word 'that' is used to refer to what is immediately mentioned before this verse.
This is also similar to the verse in which Allah Almighty, after relating the story of Prophet Yūsuf, says: {That is from the stories of the unseen which We reveal to you [O Prophet].} [Surat Yūsuf: 102]
In other verses, Allah Almighty says: {Hā Mīm. ‘Ain Sīn Qāf. That is how Allah, the Al-Mighty, All-Wise, sends revelation to you [O Prophet] and to those before you.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 1-3] There are many other similar examples [60]. The word 'that' is used in several places in the Qur’an. See for example: [Surat al-Mumtahanah: 10], [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 44], [Surat Hūd: 49], [Surat al-Hijr: 1], and [Surat ar-Ra‘d: 1].
When He says {That is the Book}, {These are the verses of the Book}, and the like, the Book referred to was not revealed at that moment, but it had already been revealed before that; so, it became like something not present, and it was referred to as an absent thing that is referred to. On the other hand, given its presence with the Prophet (ﷺ), it is also referred to as something present. Allah Almighty says: {And this [Qur’an] is a blessed reminder which We have sent down.} [Surat al-Anbiyā’: 50] Hence, some of the predecessors said: {That is the Book} means: This is the Book [61]. They say: The intended meaning is "This is the Book", though the reference is sometimes made to an absent thing and at other times to something present. See: Tafsīr At-Tabari (1/228).
And He Almighty says: {A guidance for the righteous, who believe in the unseen.} He describes the Christians as not believing in Allah or the Last Day and as disbelievers and wrongdoers. So, how could He consider them the righteous people who believe in the unseen?! Allah Almighty says: {Fight those of the People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor do they consider forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor adopt the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the protection tax willingly while they are humbled.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 29]
The foremost righteousness is avoidance of polytheism. Allah Almighty describes the Christians as polytheists, saying: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31] As He mentions the Messiah, Allah Almighty says: {But the factions differed among themselves [about him]. So, woe to the disbelievers from the scene of a momentous Day!} [Surat Maryam: 37] Allah Almighty also says: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 72] {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73]
Moreover, Allah Almighty forbids the believers from taking them as allies; He says: {O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies; they are allies of one another. Whoever among you takes them as allies is indeed one of them.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 51] Also, Allah Almighty states that He is the Protector of the righteous; He says: {Then We put you [O Prophet] on a clear way of the religion; so, follow it and do not follow the desires of those who have no knowledge. They cannot avail you at all against Allah. Indeed, the wrongdoers are protectors of one another, whereas Allah is the Protector of the righteous.} [Surat al-Jāthiyah: 18-19]
If they were among the righteous, not to mention that they were the righteous, Allah would be their Protector, and it would be obligatory for the believers to take them as allies. Yet, Allah forbade the believers from taking them as allies and declared those who do so as wrongdoers. He made the believers allies of one another and the disbelievers allies of one another.
Therefore, as Allah severed the relationship of loyalty and alliance between the believers and the disbelievers, the Prophet (ﷺ) said in an authentic Hadīth: "A Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever nor does a disbeliever inherit from a Muslim" [62]. Muslims agreed that a Jew or a Christian cannot inherit from a Muslim, even if he is his son or his father. This is because Allah severed the relationship of loyalty and alliance between them. Allah Almighty says: {You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day taking as allies those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their parents, their children, their brothers, or their kindred. It is they in whose hearts Allah has instilled faith and strengthened them with a spirit from Him.} [Surat al-Mujādilah: 22] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (6764) and by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (1614).
Also, Allah Almighty says: {Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer.} This is the prayer Allah enjoins in the verse that reads: {Establish prayer at the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night, and the recitation of dawn [prayer], for the recitation of dawn is ever witnessed [by the angles].} [Surat al-Isrā’: 78] And the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Allah does not accept a prayer without purification." [63] The Christians pray without purification. The Prophet (ﷺ) also said: "There is no prayer without Fātihat al-Kitāb (Surat al-Fātihah)." [64] They do not recite it. Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (224) and by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (135). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (756) and by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (394).
The prayer that He prescribed and praised involves facing the Ka‘bah and bowing down and offering two prostrations in every Rak‘ah, as well as other things that the Christians do not do. So, how could He praise them for establishing prayer while they do not perform the prayer that He enjoined?!
Moreover, if a Jew said that {That is the Book} refers to the Torah and "the righteous" refers to the Jews, his statement would be more acceptable - though it is untrue - than the statement of those who say that the Book here refers to the Gospel. This is because the Torah is more entitled to this than the Gospel, for it is the origin, and Allah Almighty mentions it along with the Qur’an in a number of places, like the verse that reads: {Can they be like those who are upon clear proof from their Lord, backed by a witness [Gabriel] from Him, and before it was the Book of Moses [which was] a guide and mercy?} [Surat Hūd: 17] Allah Almighty also says: {Say: "What do you think, if this [Qur’an] is really from Allah and yet you reject it, and a witness from the Children of Israel has testified in its favor and believed, whereas you persist in arrogance? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."} [Surat al-Ahqāf: 10]
Regarding the verse that reads: {And those who believe in what has been sent down to you [O Prophet] and in what was sent down before you.} This is a second trait for those who believe in the unseen. He describes them as believers in the unseen in overall terms and then describes them, specifically, as believers in what was sent down to him and what was sent down before him.
The word "and" denotes different entities and different traits. For example, Allah Almighty says: {Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High, Who created and fashioned in due proportion, and Who determined [the creation] then guided them, and Who brings forth the pasture, then makes it into withered chaff.} [Surat al-A‘la: 1-5] The One Who created and fashioned in due proportion is the One Who determined the creation then guided them, and He is the One Who brings forth the pasture.
It is said that His statement {believe in the unseen} describes the believers from outside the People of the Book, such as the Arab polytheists. {And those who believe in what has been sent down to you [O Prophet] and in what was sent down before you} describes those who believed in him from the People of the Book [65]. See: Tafsīr At-Tabari (1/242-247).
Based on this opinion, those people are different from these ones. But this is a weak opinion, for the believers from outside the People of the Book must believe in what was sent down to him and what was sent down before him, and the believers among the People of the Book must believe in the unseen. So, both elements of belief are incumbent upon everyone, and no one is upon guidance from his Lord or becomes successful without this and that.
As for the Christians' saying, "We are the people who believed in Jesus Christ without seeing him," indeed the Jews also believed in Moses (peace be upon him) without seeing him, and the Muslims believed in Muhammad (ﷺ) without seeing him. Rather, the Muslims believed in Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets without seeing them; unlike the Jews and the Christians, who believed in some and disbelieved in some others.
Plus, the "unseen" does not mean the image of the Prophet (ﷺ), as the Prophet's image does not belong to the unseen, for people can see it, and its vision does not entail belief or disbelief. The "unseen", however, is what people cannot see and what the prophets told about as part of the unseen. Falling under it is belief in Allah and His angels, His books, and His messengers. It is the belief that they are the messengers of Allah, whether their bodies can be seen or not. There could be those who see them and do not believe in them and those who believe in them without seeing them. The objective here is the belief in their message, not in their very images, so that people may say: We believed in a prophet without seeing him. Those who did not see him may realize more signs of his prophethood and marks of his message than those who saw him.
As for Allah's words in Surat al-Mā’idah: {And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that came before him, and We gave him the Gospel that contained guidance and light, confirming what came before it in the Torah, a guidance and admonition for the righteous. Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the rebellious.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 46-47] Indeed, He praises the Messiah and the Gospel and commands the Christians to judge according to what He revealed therein, and He bestows greater praise and laudation upon Moses and the Torah.
Allah Almighty says: {O Messenger, do not grieve for those who rush to disbelief – those who say with their mouths, “We believe”, but their hearts have no faith, nor those Jews who eagerly listen to falsehood and to those who have not yet come to you.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 41] In other words, they tell lies, and believe, comply, and obey other people who did not come to you. They believe in falsehood and obey your opponents, while you are the Messenger of Allah. Both belief in falsehood and obedience to those who contradict the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) are two of the gravest sins.
The word "listen" means perceiving the voice. It also means understanding the meaning. And it means accepting it. If it is said that someone listens to what so-and-so says, this means: He believes him or obeys him and accepts what he says.
So, His words {who eagerly listen to falsehood} mean: They believe in it. Otherwise, the mere hearing of a liar's voice and understanding his speech is not totally reprehensible.
Also, {Who eagerly listen to falsehood and to those who have not yet come to you.} It means: They respond to them and obey them - as Allah Almighty says regarding the hypocrites: {And some of you would have listened to them.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 47] i.e., they comply and obey them.
Whoever says that this means "a spy" is mistaken like one who says that {And some of you would have listened to them} refers to spies. Indeed, a spy reports people's information to those who do not know it. It is well known that all the Prophet's (ﷺ) statements, commands, and actions were seen and heard by all those in Madīnah, the believers and the hypocrites. He did not intend to conceal his statements and actions from the Jews of Madīnah, unlike the Jews who would come to him while believing the falsehood and obeying the other Jews who did not come to him.
Allah forbade His Prophet (ﷺ) from grieving for those who rushed to disbelief from among these two groups: the hypocrites who displayed belief in him while their hearts had no belief and the People of the Book who asked him to judge between them and did not intend to obey him and follow his judgment. If he judged according to their inclination, they would accept it; otherwise, they would not accept, because they were obedient to other people who did not come to him.
Allah Almighty says: {Who eagerly listen to falsehood and to those who have not yet come to you.} i.e., those other people did not come to you. {And they say}; in other words, those who eagerly listen say: {If you are given this [ruling] accept it, but if you are not given, then beware.” Whoever Allah wills to be misguided, there is nothing you can do to avail him against Allah. They are those whose hearts Allah did not will to purify. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter, they will suffer a great punishment.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 41]
Judgment needs truthfulness and justice. The witness must be truthful, and the judge must be just. Yet, they believe untruthful witnesses and seek the judgment of those who contradict the messengers and judge by other than what Allah revealed. If they do not seek to follow truthfulness and justice, you are not required to judge between them. If you will, judge between them, and if you will, do not judge. But, if you judge between them, only judge according to what Allah has sent down to you, for this is justice.
Allah Almighty says: {They eagerly listen to lies and consume unlawful gains. If they come to you [O Prophet], either judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in the least. But if you judge, then judge between them with justice, for Allah loves those who are just.} Then, Allah Almighty says: {But how is it that they seek your judgment when they have the Torah which contains Allah’s judgment, and they still turn away? Such people are not believers. We sent down the Torah which contains guidance and light; the prophets who submitted themselves to Allah were judging by it for the Jews, and so did the rabbis and scholars because they were entrusted to protect the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses to it. So do not fear people but fear Me, and do not trade My verses for a small price. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the disbelievers. We ordained for them therein: "A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds equal retaliation." But if anyone waives it charitably, then it will be an expiation for him. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the wrongdoers.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 42-45]
Thus, Allah praises the Torah and says that it includes Allah's judgment and that He sent down the Torah and it contains {guidance and light; the prophets who submitted themselves to Allah were judging by it for the Jews.} Allah Almighty subsequently says: {Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the disbelievers.}
This is greater praise than what He says about the Gospel. Allah Almighty says regarding the Gospel: {And We gave him the Gospel that contained guidance and light.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 46] Allah Almighty also says about it: {Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the rebellious.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 47] And about the Torah, Allah Almighty says: {The prophets who submitted themselves to Allah were judging by it for the Jews.} After mentioning it, Allah Almighty says: {Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the disbelievers.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 44] Although Allah Almighty says that He revealed the two Books, He bestows greater praise upon the Torah than the Gospel - as He says: {We sent down the Torah which contains guidance and light; the prophets who submitted themselves to Allah were judging by it for the Jews.}
If Allah's praise of Moses and the Torah does not entail praise for the Jews, who rejected the Messiah and Muhammad (peace be upon both of them), or praise for the religion of the Jews which had been altered and abrogated, by consensus among the Muslims and the Christians; likewise, His praise of the Messiah and the Gospel does not denote praise for the Christians, who rejected Muhammad (ﷺ), altered the rulings of the Torah and the Gospel, and followed the altered and abrogated religion.
The Jews agree with the Muslims that what is mentioned constitutes no praise for the Christians, and the Christians agree with the Muslims that what is mentioned constitutes no praise for the Jews, after the abrogation and alteration. So, it becomes known that all the followers of the religions - the Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians - agree that nothing of what is mentioned in the Qur’an, namely the mention of the Torah, the Gospel, Moses, and Jesus, denotes praise for the People of the Book, who rejected Muhammad (ﷺ), or praise for their religion that was altered before his mission. There is no praise in this for those who adhere to an altered religion or an abrogated religion. So, what about those who adhere to an altered and abrogated religion?!
They said: "And He says in Surat Āl ‘Imrān: {Then if they reject you [O Prophet], there were messengers who were rejected before you, who came with clear proofs, written ordinances [Psalms of David], and the enlightening Scripture.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 184] By the enlightening Scripture, He means the Holy Gospel." [66] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 416).
We say to them: It has been previously mentioned that "the messengers" categorically refers to the messengers Allah mentions in the Qur’an, particularly the messengers of firm resolve, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary. Those messengers, along with Muhammad (ﷺ), the final Prophet (peace be upon all of them), were given a special status and merit by Allah Almighty, Who says: {And [remember] when We took from the prophets their covenant and from you [O Prophet], and from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary; We took from them a solemn covenant so that He may question the truthful about their truthfulness, and He has prepared for the disbelievers a painful punishment.} [Surat al-Ahzāb: 7-8] Allah Almighty also says: {He has prescribed for you [believers] the same religion which He enjoined upon Noah, and that which We have revealed to you [O Prophet] and that which We enjoined upon Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: "You should uphold the religion and make no divisions therein."} [Surat ash-Shūra: 13]
The religion is the religion of the messengers of Allah, which is one, as Allah reveals in His Book and as authentically reported in the two "Sahīh Collections” that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, we, the community of the prophets, have one religion. The closer among people to the Son of Mary is me, for there is no prophet between me and him." [67] The word "the messengers" also refers to those messengers not specifically named in the Qur’an. Allah Almighty says: {We have sent revelation to you [O Prophet] just as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. We also sent revelation to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and We gave David the Psalms. There are messengers whose stories We have already mentioned to you, and messengers We have not mentioned to you. And Allah spoke to Moses directly. These messengers were sent as bearers of glad tidings and as warners, so that the people may have no excuse before Allah after [the coming of] the messengers. For Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 163-165] Allah Almighty also says: {We have sent messengers before you; of them are some whose stories We have told you, and some We have not.} [Surat Ghāfir: 78] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (3442) and by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2365).
As for the disciples, Allah Almighty mentions them in the Qur’an and describes them as being Muslims, following the Messenger, and believing in Allah. Allah Almighty says: {When Jesus sensed disbelief from them, he said: "Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah?" The disciples said: "We are helpers of Allah. We believe in Allah; so, bear witness that we are Muslims." [52] "Our Lord, we believe in what You have sent down and we follow the messenger; so, count us among those who bear witness [to the truth]."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 52-53] Allah Almighty also says: {And [remember] when I inspired the disciples: "Believe in Me and in My messenger [Jesus]." They said: "We believe, and bear witness that we submit to Allah [as Muslims]."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 111] And Allah Almighty says: {O you who believe, be supporters of Allah’s cause, as Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: "Who will be my supporters for Allah’s cause?” The disciples said: "We are the supporters for Allah’s cause." Then a group of the Children of Israel believed and another disbelieved. We then supported those who believed against their enemies, so they prevailed.} [Surat as-Saff: 14]
[68] Allah Almighty does not mention in the Qur’an whatsoever that He sent them. Rather, He mentioned that He inspired them to believe in Him and in His Messenger, and that they were commanded to follow His Messenger. Marginal remark/ The Qur’an does not mention that the disciples were messengers of Allah
His statement {And [remember] when I inspired the disciples} does not point to prophethood, for Allah Almighty also says: {We inspired the mother of Moses: "Suckle him."} [Surat al-Qasas: 7] The mother of Moses was not a prophet. Rather, no woman was ever a prophet, as generally held by Muslim scholars. Some scholars reported their consensus over this issue, such as Al-Qādi Abu Bakr Ibn at-Tayyib, Al-Qādi Abu Ya‘la ibn al-Farrā’, and Abu al-Ma‘āli al-Juwayni, and others.
It is authentically reported in the two "Sahīh Collections” that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Many amongst men attained perfection, but amongst women none attained perfection except Mary, the daughter of ‘Imrān, and Āsiya, the daughter of Muzāhim." [69] He was referring to the women of the other nations before us, which indicates that the mother of Moses was not one of those women who attained perfection. So, how could she be a prophet?! Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (3411) and by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2431). The wording reported in the two "Sahīh Collections”: "Āsiya, the wife of Pharaoh."
Regarding the verse that reads: {who came with clear proofs, written ordinances [Psalms of David], and the enlightening Scripture.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 184] The scripture: it is a name of a category, comprising every scripture revealed by Allah Almighty.
In another verse, Allah Almighty says: {There are some people who argue about Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an enlightening scripture.} [Surat al-Hajj: 8] His statement {or an enlightening scripture} uses an indefinite article within a negative context; thus, it comprises every enlightening scripture. If there were only the Gospel, it would have been said: "or the enlightening Scripture."
Also, the Torah is greater than the Gospel, and Allah Almighty points out that He did not reveal a book better in guidance than the Torah and the Qur’an; He says: {But when the truth came to them from Us, they said: "If only he was given the like of what was given to Moses before." Did they not reject what was given to Moses before? They say: "Both [revelations] are works of magic."} In another reading: {two magicians.} {"Supporting each other", adding: "We truly reject both of them." Say: "Then bring a scripture from Allah which is better in guidance than these two so that I may follow it, if you are truthful."} [Surat al-Qasas: 48-49]
This is an irresistible challenge to them to bring a book from Allah better in guidance than these two books - as the verse that reads: {Or do they say: "He fabricated it?" Say: {Produce then one chapter like it."} [Surat Yūnus: 38]. This indicates that neither the Gospel nor the Psalms are better in guidance than the Torah or the Qur’an. So, how could "the enlightening Scripture" be the Gospel other than the Torah or the Psalms?!
Moreover, Allah Almighty often specifically mentions the Torah from among the previous scriptures and associates it with the Qur’an. For example, Allah Almighty says: {They have not revered Allah His true reverence when they said: "Allah has sent down nothing to human beings." Say [O Prophet]: "Who then sent down the Scripture that Moses brought as a light and guidance for people, but you make it into separate sheets – revealing some and concealing much, although you have been taught [this Qur’an] which neither you nor your forefathers knew?" Say: "Allah [sent it down]." Then leave them to amuse themselves in their falsehood. This is a blessed Book which We have sent down – confirming what came before it, so that you will warn the Mother of Cities [Makkah] and all those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in it and are mindful of their prayers.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 91-92] Allah Almighty describes the Torah as containing light and guidance for people. So, how could the light be in the Gospel apart from the Torah?!
Allah Almighty also says: {Then We gave Moses the Scripture, completing [Our favor] upon those who do good, and explaining everything in detail, and as a guidance and a mercy, so that they may believe in their meeting with their Lord. This [Qur’an] is a blessed Book which We have sent down, so follow it and fear Allah, so that you may be shown mercy. You [pagans] may no longer say: "The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us, and we were unaware of their teachings."} [Surat al-An‘ām: 154-156] Allah Almighty refers to the Torah and the Qur’an and mentions their statement: The Scripture was only sent down to two groups. This points out that "the scripture" is a name of a category that comprises here the Torah and the Gospel - as the verse that reads: {O People of the Book.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 64] And the verse that reads: {As the food of the people of the Book is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And [it is lawful to marry] chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 5] He mentions "the Book" in a singular form, whereas it is well known that the people who were given the Book before us are the Jews and the Christians; this does not exclusively refer to the Christians - as in the verse that reads: {You [pagans] may no longer say: "The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us."}
The falsity of the statement of those people was made clear, those who distort the speech by taking it out of context and interpret the speech of Allah and His Messenger in a way that everyone who has knowledge about him, whether believers or disbelievers, knows that it contradicts the intention behind it.
It was also made clear that Allah does not mean by "the Scripture" the Gospel alone, just as He does not mean by "the messengers" the disciples. Rather, He means by "the enlightening Scripture" the books He revealed, such as the Torah and the Gospel, and by "the messengers", Allah means all the messengers He sent, like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary (peace be upon all of them).
They said: "And He also says: {If you are in doubt about what We have sent down to you [O Prophet], then ask those who read the Scripture before you. The truth has surely come to you from your Lord, so never be of those who doubt.} [Surat Yūnus: 94]
We say to them: It is known by necessity that this does not refer to the Christians alone, as previously mentioned. In fact, the Jews read the scripture before us, and the Christians read the scripture before us. "The scripture" is a name of a category, which occurs in the verse that reads: {You [pagans] may no longer say: "The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us."} [Surat al-An‘ām: 156]. And the verse that reads: {As the food of the people of the Book.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 5] And the verse that reads: {O People of the Book.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 64] This occurs in a number of places. [70] See the verses: [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] and [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 18-20].
And Allah Almighty says: {O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down [to Muhammad] – confirming your own Scriptures – before We obliterate faces turning them backwards, or We curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers. For Allah’s will is always executed.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 47] The reference here by "the People of the Book" to the Jews is more apparent than its reference to the Christians, given the mention of the curse upon the Sabbath-breakers.
Also the verse that reads: {A faction of the People of the Book says: "Believe in what has been sent down to the believers in the morning and reject it in the evening, so that they may return [from their faith]."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 72] It speaks about a group of the Jews who made this statement.
And Allah Almighty says: {O you who believe, if you obey a group of those who were given the Scripture, they will turn you back as disbelievers after your belief.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 100] The reason behind its revelation is that a group of the Jews wanted to sow dissension among the Muslims. So, they are surely included in this verse, even if the discourse generally addresses the two groups. [71] See: Asbāb An-Nuzūl by Al-Wāhidi (pp. 270-273).
Allah's command to him to ask those who used to read the Scripture before him, in case he was in doubt, does not entail that the Messenger was doubtful or that he asked - if he is said to be the addressed one; and if someone else is said to be addressed, this is more appropriate. Making a certain ruling conditional upon some requirement does not indicate that the requirement may materialize. In fact, a ruling could be made conditional upon an impossible requirement just to clarify it ruling.
Allah Almighty says: {And among his descendants: David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. Thus, do We reward those who do good. And Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias – each was among the righteous. Also, Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot – each of them We preferred over all other people [of their times]. And some of their fathers, their descendants, and their brothers – We chose them and guided them to a straight path. This is Allah’s guidance with which He guides whom He wills of His slaves. If they were to associate others with Him, all their deeds would have been nullified.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 84-88] He says that had they associated others with Him, all their deeds would have been nullified, though they were not polytheists, and this could not happen, because they had already passed away and the prophets are insusceptible to polytheism.
Allah Almighty also says: {Say [O Prophet]: "Do you order me to worship other than Allah, O ignorant people?" It has already been revealed to you and to those who came before you that if you associate others with Allah, your deeds will surely become worthless, and you will certainly be among the losers. Rather, worship Allah alone and be among those who are grateful.} [Surat az-Zumar: 64-66] This address is for all. It addresses someone who is present and pertains to a deceased person.
Likewise, the verse that reads: {If you are in doubt about what We have sent down to you [O Prophet], then ask} does not indicate that the doubt or the question did take place. In fact, the Prophet (ﷺ) was not doubtful and did not ask anyone in this regard. Rather, he was reported to have said: "By Allah, I am not doubtful and will not ask." [72] Narrated by ‘Abdur-Razzāq in his "Musannaf" no. (10211) and At-Tabari in his "Tafsīr" (12/288).
The bottom line here is that the People of the Book have what confirms what you have, which the disbelievers denied. This comprises a number of aspects: That's part of the verse in Surat Yūnus.
[74] The First Aspect: The previous scriptures state that Moses and others called to the worship of Allah alone and forbade polytheism. This constitutes an argument against those who think that polytheism is from religion. Marginal remark/ That the previous scriptures forbid polytheism and call to worship of Allah alone
An example is the verse that reads: {Ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before you: Did We appoint gods to be worshiped besides the Most Compassionate?} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 45] And the verse that reads: {We never sent before you [O Prophet] any messenger without revealing to him that none has the right to be worshiped except Me, so worship Me.} [Surat al-Anbiyā’: 25] And the verse that reads: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and shun false gods." Among them were some whom Allah guided, while others were destined to stray. So, travel through the land and see how was the end of the deniers!} [Surat an-Nahl: 36]
[75] The Second Aspect: The People of the Book know that Allah sent to people human beings like themselves and did not send an angel to them. Some of the disbelievers claim that Allah would not send but an angel or a human accompanied by an angel and wonder that Allah would send a human with no visible angel with him. In this regard, Allah Almighty says: {Nothing prevented people from believing when guidance came to them except that they said: "Has Allah sent a human as a messenger?" Say: "If there had been angels walking on earth peacefully, We would have certainly sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger."} [Surat al-Isrā’: 94-95] Allah Almighty also says: {We sent Noah to his people. He said: "O my people, worship Allah; you have no god other than Him. Will you not then fear Him?" The disbelieving chiefs of his people said: "This is only a man like yourselves who wants to be superior to you. If Allah had willed, He could have sent down angels. We have not heard such a thing from our forefathers. He is just a madman, so bear with him for a while."} [76] [Surat al-Mu’minūn: 23-25] Marginal remark/ The previous scriptures mention that the messengers were humans and not angels Allah informs about the response by the people of Sālih, see: [Surat al-Qamar: 23-24], and the people of Pharaoh, see: [Surat al-Mu’minūn: 47]; and what the Quraysh disbelievers said to our Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), see: [Surat Yūnus: 1-2] and [Surat al-An‘ām: 8-9].
[77] The Third Aspect: They ask the People of the Book about what happened to the messengers with their communities and about the outcome of those who believed in them and of those who rejected them. Marginal remark/ That the previous scriptures inform of the outcome of those who rejected the messengers
[78] The Fourth Aspect: They ask the People of the Book about the religion with which Allah sent His messengers - the religion of Islam - over which the messengers agreed, such as enjoining monotheism, truthfulness, justice, kindness to one's parents, and upholding kinship ties, and forbidding polytheism, injustice, and immoralities. Marginal remark/ That the previous scriptures contain detailed information about what the messengers called to
[79] The Fifth Aspect: They ask them about the messengers' description of their Lord, as to whether or not it is consistent with Muhammad's description of Him? These matters questioned about are well known and mass transmitted among the People of the Book. They are not among the issues they have doubts about. These things are well known among them through mass transmission, and so they are asked about them; it does not mean that all they say is well known to them through mass transmission. Marginal remark/ That the previous scriptures comprise what points to the truthfulness of Muhammad (ﷺ) in his description of his Lord
They are also asked about the testimonies and prophecies they have about Muhammad's prophethood.
Allah Almighty mentions this in the Qur’an, saying: {"Ordain for us good in this life and in the Hereafter, for We have turned to You in repentance." Allah said: "As for my punishment, I will afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses everything; I will ordain it for those who fear Me, and give Zakah, and those who believe in Our verses, those who follow the Messenger – the unlettered Prophet – whose description they find in their Torah and the Gospel. He enjoins them to do what is good and forbids them from what is evil; he makes lawful for them what is pure and makes unlawful for them what is impure; he relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were on them."} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 156-157] Allah Almighty also says: {And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel, I am truly a messenger of Allah to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger after me whose name will be Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is clear magic."} [Surat as-Saff: 6] So, Allah Almighty says that Jesus confirmed the Messenger and the Book that preceded him, namely the Torah, and gave glad tidings about the Messenger who would come after him, and that is Ahmad.
The texts mentioning the knowledge of the People of the Book about Muhammad's (ﷺ) description exist in their previous books and are mass transmitted from them [80]. Allah Almighty revealed a number of verses with a similar meaning. See: [Surat al-Baqarah: 144-146] and [Surat al-Mā’idah: 83].
Before the Prophet's (ﷺ) mission, there used to be wars and fighting between the Arabs and the People of the Book. The People of the Book would say: The coming of this unlettered prophet who would be sent with the religion of Abraham has become near. When he appears, we will follow him and kill them (the Arabs) horribly along with him. But when the Prophet (ﷺ) was sent, some of them believed in him and some others disbelieved - as Allah Almighty says: {Although they used to pray for victory.} i.e., they would seek Muhammad's (ﷺ) support against the disbelievers. {But when there came to them what they recognize [to be true], they rejected it. May the curse of Allah be upon the disbelievers!} [Surat al-Baqarah: 89]
Therefore, when the Prophet (ﷺ) addressed the People of the Book, he would say: "By Allah, other than Whom there is none worthy of worship, you surely know that I am the Messenger of Allah." [81] Moreover, those who believed among them, like ‘Abdullāh ibn Salām, would say to others among the People of the Book: "By Allah, other than Whom there is none worthy of worship, you surely know that he is the Messenger of Allah." This is something well known in the authentic Hadīths narrated in the two "Sahīh Collections” and other collections. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (3911).
So, what we have mentioned demonstrates that these people distorted Allah's words and that they have no argument in what was revealed to Muhammad (ﷺ), as similar instances have previously been mentioned.
They said: "This established what we have and negated from our Gospel and the books in our hands the accusations, the alterations, and the changes, given its confirmation of them." [82] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 415).
[83] We say to them: The argument you cite regarding this issue and others is either purely false or it falls under that which you mixed the truth with falsehood. Marginal remark/ The falsity of the claim that the Qur’an negates alteration and distortion from the Torah and the Gospel
You said: "given its confirmation of them."
If you mean that it confirms the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms which Allah sent down to His prophets, this is doubtless. Indeed, this is mentioned in the Qur’an in a number of places. Allah ordained His servants to believe in every scripture He revealed and every prophet He sent, and He said that He revealed these scriptures before the Qur’an and revealed the Qur’an confirming the scriptures that came before it and as a criterion over them.
Allah Almighty says: {Alif Lām Mīm. Allah: none has the right to be worshiped except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining. He has sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming what came before it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel previously, as guidance for people.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 1-4] Allah Almighty also says: {We have revealed to you [O Prophet] the Book in truth, confirming the scriptures that came before it and as a criterion over them.} [84] [Surat al-Mā’idah: 48] See also: [Surat al-Baqarah: 101], [Surat an-Nisā’: 47], and [Surat Fātir: 31].
Allah ordained His servants to believe in all His books and messengers and declared as disbelievers those who believe in some and disbelieve in others. Allah Almighty says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted." If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided. But if they turn away, then they are in plain dissension. Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136-137] Allah Almighty also says: {Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, say: "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," wishing to adopt a way in between. It is they who are the true disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment. But those who believe in Allah and His messengers, and make no distinction between any of them, will be given their rewards. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 150-152]
So, He dispraises making distinction between them by believing in some and not others, and He points out that He favored some of them over others. Allah Almighty says: {Those messengers: We favored some over others.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 253] He states that He favored some of them over others. Allah Almighty says: {We have surely favored some prophets over others.} [Surat al-Isrā’: 55]
Muslims agree over what is known by necessity in the religion of Islam, namely the obligation to believe in all the prophets and messengers and all the scriptures sent down by Allah.
Whoever disbelieves in one prophet whose prophethood is known, such as Abraham, Lot, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah, and Jesus, is a disbeliever, by consensus among all Muslims. He is subject to the ruling applying to the disbelievers, and if he is an apostate, he should be advised to repent; if he does not repent, he is to be killed. [85] Whoever disbelieves in one prophet has disbelieved in all prophets, as Allah Almighty says: {The people of Noah rejected the messengers} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 105]. He was the first messenger. This indicates that the other prophets were also rejected, for the reality of the divine messages is the same.
Whoever reviles one single prophet is to be killed, by consensus among the Muslims.
When Muslims know that one of the prophets said something, they are obligated to believe it, as they believe what the Prophet (ﷺ) informed about. They know that the prophets' statements do not contradict one another.
What they do not know to be said by one of the prophets is treated like what they do not know to be said by Muhammad (peace be upon all of them). They, however, do not deny except what they know to be false, just as they do not believe except what they know to be true.
If they do not know something to be true or false, they should refrain from believing or denying it, as their Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) commanded them. The Messiah (peace be upon him) also enjoined this, saying: "Matters are of three types: what is clearly true, follow it; what is clearly wrong, avoid it; and what is confusing to you, leave it to those with knowledge about it." [86] Narrated by Ahmad in "Az-Zuhd" (p. 52), ‘Abd ibn Humayd in Al-Muntakhab from his "Musnad Collection" no. (675), and Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (7802).
Or if they mean by its confirmation of their books that it confirms the creeds and laws they invented without permission from Allah, and by which they contradicted the preceding laws of the messengers, or contradicted the laws he was sent with. Their invented creeds include the trinity, the three persons, and the indwelling and unity between the divine nature and the human one. They also say: The Messiah is Allah and the son of Allah, and they deny what should be believed in, like the belief in Allah and the Last Day. And they consider as lawful what Allah and His messengers declared unlawful, like pigs and other things. Moreover, they do not follow the true religion with which His book was revealed, and His messenger was sent; rather, they follow an invented religion which their chiefs devised for them. Allah Almighty says: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31]
The Prophet (ﷺ) explained this to ‘Adiyy ibn Hātim, who was then a Christian. Thereafter, he came and believed in him and became one of the noblest Companions. One day he heard him recite this verse: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31] ‘Adiyy reported: I said: O Messenger of Allah, they did not worship them. He said: "Indeed, they made the unlawful things lawful for them and the lawful things unlawful, and they obeyed them; this was their worship of them." [87] Narrated by At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3095). He said: "This Hadīth is strange; we do not know it except from the Hadīth by ‘Abd-us-Salām ibn Harb". It was also narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in his "As-Sunan Al-Kubra Collection" no. (20409).
If they mean that it confirms these things, or that Muhammad (ﷺ) confirmed what they have, which was not brought by the prophets from Allah, then they ascribed apparent falsehood to Muhammad (ﷺ), and this is known by necessity in his religion. In fact, he confirmed what the prophets before him came with. As for what they invented and devised, he did not confirm it.
Moreover, He did not permit them to continue to follow the previous religion, even if it was not altered; rather, He called them, along with all humankind and jinn, to believe in him and what he came with and follow the Book and wisdom he was sent with. He declared as a disbeliever anyone who does not follow His Book which was revealed to him and ordained, in addition to their punishment in the Hereafter, that Jihad be conducted against them in this world so that the religion becomes entirely for Allah so that Allah's Word becomes the supreme one.
In a number of places, He invited the People of the Book as a whole - the Jews and the Christians - and then each group of them in particular, along with calling the whole of humanity, including the People of the Book and others. For example, Allah Almighty says: {"Ordain for us good in this life and in the Hereafter, for We have turned to You in repentance." Allah said: "As for my punishment, I will afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses everything; I will ordain it for those who fear Me, and give Zakah, and those who believe in Our verses, those who follow the Messenger – the unlettered Prophet – whose description they find in their Torah and the Gospel. He enjoins them to do what is good and forbids them from what is evil; he makes lawful for them what is pure and makes unlawful for them what is impure; he relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were on them. So those who believe in him, they honor and support him, and follow the light which is sent down with him – it is they who will be successful." Say [O Prophet]: "O people, I am the Messenger of Allah to you all. To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth; none has the right to be worshiped except Him; He gives life and causes death." So, believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him, so that you may be guided.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 156-158]
Addressing the Christians, Allah Almighty says: {O People of the Book, do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about Allah but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say "Three" [Trinity]. Cease: that is better for you. Indeed, Allah is the only One God. Glory be to Him, [far exalted is He] to have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of Affairs.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171]
Allah Almighty also says: {Those who say, "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary," have certainly disbelieved.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17, 72]. It occurs in two places.
Allah Almighty says that the Christians abandoned a part of what was enjoined upon them, and due to this, He induced hostility and hatred among them until the Day of Judgment. So, it has been known that they left some of what the Messiah and the prophets before him came with, and as a result they deserved that Allah should induce hostility and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection.
And Allah Almighty says: {O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77]
He forbids them from exceeding the proper limits in their religion and from following the desires of those who devised innovations by which they changed the religion of the Messiah. So, they went astray before those followers and misled many of those followers as well as others, and they strayed from the straight path, which is the middle path. So, He clarifies error and specifies it after mentioning it in general and in comprehensive terms.
The Prophet (ﷺ) set out to fight them by himself in the battle of Tabūk and mobilized all the believers to fight them. He did not give permission to any one of those who were able to lag behind. Whoever did not join the battle due to the belief that fighting them was not a duty were disbelievers, and if they were outwardly Muslims, they were in fact cursed hypocrites. Allah points out that He will not forgive them and prohibited His Prophet from offering the funeral prayer over them. About this, He revealed the larger part of Surat [Barā’ah], with mass transmission, in which He points out the disbelief of those who sought his permission to be exempted from fighting against the Christians. [88] See: [Surat at-Tawbah: 38-48].
It has become clear with regard to their statement: "This established what we have and negated from our Gospel and the books in our hands the accusations, the alterations, and the changes, given its confirmation of it."
If they mean by it: that it established what the prophets before him brought from Allah, then it is true.
But if they mean: that it established the religion they are following after his mission, which contradicts his religion, or the innovations they devised, which were not brought by the prophets before him, then it is wrong.
If they mean: that it confirms the words of the books in their hands, i.e., the Torah and the Gospel, some Muslims agree with them over that, whereas the majority of Muslims dispute it. Nonetheless, most Muslims accept most of such things.
[89] As for the distortion of the meanings of these books by interpreting them wrongly and altering their rulings, all Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians attest to their distortion and alteration. Also, they, along with the Muslims, testify against the Jews regarding the distortion of many of the Torah's meanings and the alteration of its rulings, even though they and the Jews say: The Torah's words were not distorted. Marginal remark/ Distortion of the Gospel
Thereupon, it will not benefit them that the words of the books remain with them, while the meanings were distorted, just as it did not benefit the Jews that the words of the Torah and the other scriptures remained with them, while their meanings were distorted. Rather, all the scriptures they acknowledge are among the Jews' books, and they, along with the Jews, negate from them the accusations and alteration of their words. Nonetheless, they consider the Jews to be among the worst people in terms of disbelief and deserving of Allah's punishment in this world and in the Hereafter, and to the Christians, who regard the Muslims as disbelievers, they are worse than those in disbelief and evil. The Christians agree that Muslims are better than the Jews, and the Jews, likewise, agree that Muslims are better than the Christians. In fact, all the communities that differ from the Muslims testify that Muslims are better than all other communities and groups except themselves, and their testimony regarding themselves is not accepted. So, this is consensus among the people of the world over the preference of the religion of Islam.
Hence, it is known that the remaining of the words of the book while refraining from following their meanings and distorting them does not mean that their people are believers, nor does it negate disbelief from them.
Then, the testimony of Muhammad (ﷺ) and his Ummah for the Messiah (peace be upon him) and the Gospel revealed to him is not greater in establishing what the Christians have than the testimony of the Messiah (peace be upon him) and the disciples and all his followers for Moses and the Torah revealed to him in establishing what the Jews have. Indeed, the Messiah enjoined his followers to follow the Torah, except the little part thereof which he abrogated.
As for Muhammad (ﷺ), he was sent with a separate book and a separate, complete, and perfect Shariah with which he did not need any previous laws for his Ummah to learn from others or subsequent laws to complete his Shariah. As a result, the Prophet (ﷺ) said in an authentic Hadīth: "There were among the nations before you people who were inspired. If there is anyone of such among my followers, then he is ‘Umar." [90] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (3469) and Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2398).
He emphasized that those who were before him included people who were inspired, and he used a conditional clause regarding his Ummah; for his Ummah does not need another prophet after him, and it is even more appropriate and reasonable for them not to need, along with him, someone who is inspired.
As for those who came before him, they would need a prophet after a prophet. So, they could need people who were inspired. Therefore, when the Messiah, son of Mary, descends within his Ummah, he will only rule them according to the Shariah of Muhammad (ﷺ).
If, despite this, the testimony of the Messiah and his followers, who believed in the Torah and Moses as a messenger, does not prevent the Jews from being disbelievers, as they altered the law of the Torah and rejected the Messiah and the Gospel, then how could the testimony of Muhammad and his Ummah that the Gospel was sent down by Allah, and for the Messiah to be a messenger of Allah, prevent the Christians from being disbelievers, though they altered the law of the Gospel and rejected Muhammad (ﷺ) and the Shariah of the Qur’an?!
If some of them believe that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah to the Arabs or believe in much of the Qur’an, this does not prevent them from being disbelievers if they disbelieve in some of it. Rather, whoever disbelieves in anything of what the messengers brought from Allah is a disbeliever, even if he believes in most of what the messengers came with. Allah Almighty says: {Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, and they say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," wishing to adopt a way in between.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 150] Allah Almighty also says: {Do you then believe in part of the Scripture and deny another part? Then what is the recompense for those who do so among you except disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be subjected to the severest torment? For Allah is not unaware of what you do.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 85]
He mentioned in several places that the Christians are disbelievers, commanded that Jihad be conducted against them, and declared as disbelievers those who do not consider Jihad and fighting against them as a duty or do not consider it as an act of worship and obedience to Allah. So, if those who do not consider Jihad against them as worship to Allah and are regarded as disbelievers by Muhammad (ﷺ), how would he (ﷺ) regard them (the Christians) themselves?
If it has become clear to everyone, the ordinary and the elite ones, those who believe in Muhammad (ﷺ) and those who disbelieve in him, that he confirmed the preceding books and prophets, confirmed the Torah and the Gospel, testified that Moses (peace be upon him) and those who had followed him were on the right path, that the Messiah (peace be upon him) and those who had followed him were on the right path, even though he declared as disbelievers all the Jews and the Christians and others who were informed of his message yet they did not believe in him, he testified against them that they distorted many of the meanings of the Torah and the Gospel before his mission, and that all the People of the Book, along with the Muslims, also bear witness that many of the meanings of the Torah and the Gospel were distorted by many among the People of the Book - then, it is not valid for anyone among the People of the Book to cite Muhammad's (ﷺ) statements as a proof for the validity of their religion, which Muhammad (ﷺ) testified that they are altered and abrogated, and that such adherents will be among the people of Hellfire.
The one recounting about them said: "I said to them: What if someone says that the alteration and change probably happened after this statement? They said: We wonder at those people, and at their knowledge and intelligence, as to how they can cite such a statement as an argument against us! Indeed, if we also cited a statement like this as an argument against them and said that they changed and altered the book in their hands today and have written therein whatever they wanted and wished, would they accept our statement as valid?
The one recounting about them said: I said to them: This is not valid, and no one can say such a thing..." [91] To the end of the chapter. Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 415-416). This text in the printed epistle is a little different from the text reported by Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him).
The answer: This Christian questioner, who mentioned a question by the Muslims, which they do not adopt, and mentioned the response to it by the Christian scholars, based his reasoning - and so did they - upon two invalid principles:
The First Principle: That the Messenger (ﷺ) confirmed what they have and negated from their books, which are in their hands, the accusations, the alterations, and the changes that happened to them.
Their objective here cannot materialize without negating the alteration of these books' words and meanings; whereas every sane person knows that the Messenger (ﷺ) did not negate that from them. In fact, the mass-transmitted texts from him indicate the opposite.
Also, they, and every rational person, know that the books in their hands are subject to divergence and conflicting interpretations among the Christian sects, and between the Christians and the Jews, in a way that categorically proves that much of this was altered and distorted - and that the laws contained in these books were also changed. These books contain two basic elements: information and commands. Belief in them cannot be complete without firmly believing the information contained therein and observing the commands.
The People of the Book disbelieve much of the information contained in these books and do not consider it obligatory to obey them in many of their obligations and commands. Each sect adopts this approach with regard to the other sects.
The Christians have seven well-known synods. In each synod, they curse one of their major denominations and declare them disbelievers. They say that they disbelieve some of the contents of these books and do not consider it obligatory to observe some of the commands contained therein. On the other hand, that denomination testifies that the other one disbelieves in some of the contents of these books. Then there come their three famous sects: The Nestorians, the Melkites, and the Jacobites. Each denomination declares the others as disbelievers and curses them and testifies that they disbelieve in some of the contents of the scriptures and do not consider it obligatory to observe some of their commands.
They even differ over the very monotheistic belief and the message, with each group claiming that the Messiah came with the teachings they follow. The Messiah (peace be upon him) and all messengers are disassociated from those who made divisions in their religion and turned into factions and are disassociated from those who say about Allah untrue things or things they do not know; and they are disassociated from anything false that may be said about Allah Almighty, even if it was said mistakenly and unintentionally. The Christians say too many things of these types to be counted.
If you came to know that all groups of the Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians testify that these books underwent distortion and alteration in their meanings, interpretations, and laws, then this is sufficient proof. Since Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission, whoever does not believe in him has become a disbeliever, unlike the case of the Christians before his mission, as there were among them those who followed the Messiah's religion.
As for the Muslims, although there are among them some who distorted and altered the religion, yet most of them opposed them, and a group of them continues to adhere to the truth, not being harmed by those who oppose them or forsake them until the Day of Judgment. By contrast, all the Christians became disbelievers, as the Jews became disbelievers by rejecting the Messiah.
The Muslims prove with much evidence that they altered the meanings of the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and other scriptures and invented teachings that neither the Messiah nor other prophets came with and are not accepted by any sane person. An example is their claim that all the children of Adam, including the prophets and messengers, were in the custody of the devil in Hell because their father Adam ate from the tree, and that they were delivered from that when the Messiah was crucified.
If someone reported these statements from some of the prophets, we would know for sure that he lied about them. So, what if these statements, according to them, are not reported by any of the prophets? Rather, they transmit these statements from those whose words do not constitute a binding authority. Much of their religion is taken from their chiefs, who are not prophets. If we were sure about the untruthfulness of one who would report these statements from the prophets, then what about one who did not report them from the prophets?
The Second Invalid Principle: Their belief that Muslims say that the words of all the existing copies of these books were distorted after Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission.
[92] The Muslims do not say this. Some of them, however, may say that the words of some of the copies were distorted after Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission. But the majority of those who say that some of their words were distorted include some who maintain that this happened before Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission and others who say it happened thereafter. Some of them also regard both things as true or likely. But they do not say that the words of all the copies existing all over the world were distorted, as said by this one who recounted about them. However, the Muslim scholars and the scholars among the People of the Book agree that the meanings and interpretations underwent distortion, even though each group alleges that it was the other groups who distorted the meanings. Marginal remark/ Altering the words of the Gospel
As for the words of these books, a group of Muslim scholars held the view that they were not altered, an opinion adopted by some among the People of the Book. But many scholars among the Muslims and the People of the Book maintained that some of their words were altered, a view famously held by many Muslim scholars and by many scholars among the People of the Book. Even regarding the crucifixion of the Messiah, a group of the Christians held that the one who was made to look like the Messiah was crucified, as informed by the Qur’an, and that those who reported the Messiah's crucifixion based their information on what they saw outwardly. When the crucified person was made to look like the Messiah, they thought he was the Messiah, or they lied on purpose.
Moreover, there are those among them who say: There are altered words in the scriptures, and others say that many words of the Torah and the Gospel were altered. Some of them may also say that the majority of their words, particularly in the Gospel, were altered. The Gospel is subject to greater and more apparent criticism than the Torah. Some of those even go to extremes and say: Nothing of them is sacred; rather, it is permissible to be used as tissue paper after answering the call of nature.
Some of them say: Few words of them were altered, which is more likely. The alteration in the Gospel is more apparent. Rather, many people say: These Gospels contain nothing of Allah's speech but a little, and the Gospel which is the speech of Allah are not these Gospels.
The correct view, however, is that this Torah and this Gospel, which are in the hands of the People of the Book, contain some of the rulings of Allah, although some of their words have been altered and changed, as Allah Almighty says: {O Messenger do not grieve for those who rush to disbelief – those who say with their mouths, “We believe”, but their hearts have no faith, nor those Jews who eagerly listen to falsehood and to those who have not yet come to you. They distort the words [of Allah].} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 41] To the verse: {But how is it that they seek your judgment when they have the Torah which contains Allah’s judgment?} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 43] So, it is known that the Torah, which existed after the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of Nebuchadnezzar, after the Messiah's mission, and after Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission, contains Allah's judgment.
The same holds true for the Gospel. Allah Almighty says: {Let the people of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 47] So, it has been known that this Gospel contains judgment which was revealed by Allah Almighty. However, the judgment falls under commands and prohibitions, which does not prevent the occurrence of changes in the verses dealing with information and events. Verbal alteration happened in this area. As for the rulings in the Torah, almost no one claims that their words were altered.
Also, there is in the Torah and the Gospel what points to Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood. So, if the people of the Torah and the Gospel judge by what Allah revealed therein, they will be judging by what obliges them to follow Muhammad (ﷺ).
This indicates that the Torah and the Gospel contain what they know was revealed by Allah, as they would not be commanded to judge by what Allah revealed while they did not know what Allah revealed. Judgment pertains to commands and prohibitions. Knowing some of the books' meanings does not contradict not having knowledge about some others.
This is something agreed upon regarding the meanings. The Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians agree that the divine books include the command to worship Allah alone, with no partner, that He sent human messengers to the people, and that He ordains justice and forbids oppression, immoralities, and polytheism - in addition to similar comprehensive laws and teachings. They agree that they contain the promise of reward and the threat of punishment, and they also agree over the belief in the Last Day, though they differ over some of their meanings and the relevant interpretation. The Jews and the Christians also differ over the Messiah who is mentioned in the prophecies, as to whether he is the Messiah, son of Mary, or another Messiah to be awaited.
The Muslims know that the Christians are right about this, but they do not agree with them over the falsehood and polytheism they invented.
It is also said: If few of their informative words were altered, this does not necessarily mean that most of their words were altered, especially if the book itself contains what indicates to the altered words.
It may also be said: As for what was altered in the Torah and the Gospel, the Torah, and the Gospel themselves contain what indicates to its alteration.
This provides the response to the misconception of those who say that none of their words was altered. They argue that if the alteration had taken place before Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission, the truth would not have been distinguished from the untruth in these books, and so it would have been invalid to cite them for argument, and the People of the Book would not have remained under the obligation to act upon them or have been criticized for the failure to follow them; whereas the Qur’an criticizes them for failing to judge by what is in these two books, and it cites them in a number of places.
The response: Only a small part was altered, and the majority was not. The unaltered part contains explicit words that clarify the meanings and demonstrate the error of what contradicts them, and there are many similar instances and examples that corroborate one another. By contrast, the altered part is a few words, and all other parts of the books run counter to it. This is similar to the collections of Hadīths transmitted from the Prophet (ﷺ). If there are a few weak Hadīths in "Sunan Abu Dāwūd" and "At-Tirmidhi" or other Hadīth Collections, the authentic Hadīths serve to demonstrate the weakness of those Hadīths.
Likewise, if it is said: Some of the words of the previous scriptures were altered, those scriptures contain what demonstrates these errors. We have previously mentioned that the Muslims do not claim that the words of every copy of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms in the world from the time of Muhammad (ﷺ), in every language, were altered. I do not know that anyone of the predecessors said that, though some of the later scholars may hold this view, just as some of the later scholars regard it valid to use all the copies of the Torah and the Gospel in the world as tissue paper after answering the call of nature. These and similar views were not held by the predecessors and scholars of this Ummah.
When ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (may Allah be pleased with him) saw a copy of the Torah in the hand of Ka‘b al-Ahbār, he said: "O Ka‘b, if you know that this is the very Torah that Allah sent down to Moses, son of ‘Imrān, then read it." [93] He made the matter conditional upon something that could not be known. Meanwhile, he did not emphasize that its words were altered, as he did not examine its entire contents. Narrated by Mālik in "Al-Muwatta’ Collection" (1/108) and Ibrāhīm al-Harbi in "Gharīb Al-Hadīth" (3/950). See: At-Tamhīd by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (14/387) and Tafsīr Al-Qurtubi (4/51).
The mass-transmitted Qur’an and Sunnah indicate that the Torah and the Gospel that existed during the Prophet's (ﷺ) time contained revelation of Allah Almighty. It is quite unreasonable to assert that such alteration happened to all the copies in the world. We do not need to mention that, and we have no knowledge about it. Meanwhile, no one among the People of the Book can claim that all the copies in the world, in all languages of the books, comprise the same exact words. Humans can't know this through their own examination and testing. Something like this can only be known through divine revelation. Indeed, nobody can compare every copy existing in the world with all the other copies in all the languages of the 24 books. We have seen marked differences between them in terms of their words.
Thereupon, their words: "We wonder at those people, and at their knowledge and intelligence, as to how they can cite such a statement as an argument against us! Indeed, if we also cited a statement like this as an argument against them and said that they changed and altered the book which is in their hands today and have written therein whatever they wanted and wished, would they accept our statement as valid?"
The one reporting their speech said: I said to them: This is not valid, and no one can say such a thing. It cannot be changed, and no single letter thereof can be altered.
They said: How strange! If their book, which is in one language, cannot be altered, and no single letter thereof can be changed, then how could our books, which are written in seventy-two languages, be changed? And in every language of them, there are such and such thousand scrolls, and they went through more than six hundred years before the coming of Muhammad. They circulated among people, being recited in their different languages despite the great distance between their places.
Who could speak in seventy-two languages? And who can judge the entire world, with its kings, priests, and scholars, and is able to control them in the world's different countries and gather them in all the four corners of the globe to change them?
As for him changing some of them and leaving others, this could not be possible, because they are all one speech and the same words in all the languages. So, it is not valid for anyone to say that whatsoever." [94] I did not find this complementary part in the printed and circulating Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. It was probably omitted therefrom. See the beginning of the speech in the epistle itself (pp. 415-416).
These words from them indicate their utmost ignorance of what the Muslims say in their books. It has become clear that due to their extreme ignorance, they thought that the Muslims say something the error of which is apparent to anyone with the least degree of reason and knowledge.
No one among the different nations doubts that the Muslims are the wisest, most intelligent, most knowledgeable, and most eloquent community. Furthermore, they have the best objective and religion, and they are the best in upholding truthfulness and justice. Humanity has not known a community more perfect than them or laws more perfect than the laws brought by their Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), as acknowledged by the ingenious philosophers. Moreover, the world has not witnessed laws more perfect than these.
Allah combined for the Muslims all ways and types of human knowledge. People fall under two categories: people with a divine book and people with no book, such as the philosophers and the Hindus.
Knowledge can be gained through the senses and reason. Besides, Allah sends down revelation to His prophets, which is beyond the senses and reason that are shared by people.
Hence, it is said that the ways of knowledge are eyesight, reasoning, and reporting, and using the senses, reason, divine revelation, analogy, and prophethood.
The People of the Book were distinguished from others by the prophethood that came to them, and they shared with others the material and intellectual knowledge that are common among all people.
The Muslims gained the prophetic and intellectual knowledge as was obtained by the preceding nations, and they were distinguished from them by knowledge not possessed by the other nations. They pruned and refined the intellectual knowledge that reached them from other nations, in terms of its words and meanings, until it became better than it was before them. They rid it of falsehood and added thereto the truth by which they are distinguished from others.
Likewise, Allah endowed the Muslims with such prophetic knowledge that He did not give to any nation before them. This is clear to anyone who ponders the Qur’an and ponders the Torah and the Gospel, as he will perceive such excellence of the knowledge contained in the Qur’an that can be noticed by everyone except for those who are blind.
Considering that, how could anyone think that the Muslims fail to see the error of those ignorant people's view about them?
[The response to their speech comprises a number of aspects]:
[95] The First Aspect: That the Muslims did not claim that these books were distorted after their spread and the multiplication of their copies. All of them, however, agree that many of their meanings were altered and changed, as well as many of their rulings. Marginal remark/ The agreement among the Muslims that the Torah and the Gospel have been altered and distorted
This is one of the things all the Christians acknowledge regarding the Torah and the preceding scriptures. They agree that the Jews changed many of their meanings and rulings.
It is also one of the things the Christians acknowledge about their groups. Each group contradicts the other over the interpretation of the previous books. The Jews also acknowledge it, as they agree that the Christians interpret the Torah and the scriptures preceding the Gospel in a way contrary to their meanings, thus altering the rulings of the Torah. So, the alteration of many meanings of the previous scriptures became a matter of consensus among the Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians.
As for changing some of their words, this is subject to dispute among the Muslims. The correct opinion in this regard, which is adopted by the majority of scholars, is that some of their words were altered, as mentioned in the relevant places.
[96] The Second Aspect: Their analogical comparison between their books and the Qur’an, and their claim about alteration is rejected regarding the Qur’an. The same holds true with their books, which are invalid and wrong. Marginal remark/ The invalidity of the Christians comparing the Qur’an to their Book in terms of the alteration and distortion
What the Muslims adopt in their religion with clear and well-known consensus is mass transmitted from the Messenger (ﷺ), and even considered part of what is known by necessity in his religion. The five prayers, the Zakah, the fasting of Ramadan, the pilgrimage to the Ka‘bah, the obligation of justice and truthfulness, the prohibition of polytheism, immoralities, and injustice, and the prohibition of wine, gambling, usury, and the likes are mass transmitted from the Prophet (ﷺ) like the mass transmission of the Qur’an's words confirming all that.
The Muslims adopt mass transmission from their Prophet through the words of the Qur’an and its agreed-upon meanings, and the Sunnah mass transmitted from him. An example is the fact that the Zhuhr, ‘Asr, ‘Ishā’ prayers consist of four Rak‘ahs, and the Maghrib prayer is three Rak‘ahs, and the Fajr prayer is two. Another example is that the recitation in the Maghrib, ‘Ishā’, and Fajr prayers is audible, while the recitation in the Zhuhr and ‘Asr prayers is inaudible. Yet another example is that a Rak‘ah comprises two prostrations, the Tawāf around the Ka‘bah and between Mount Safa and Mount Marwah consists of seven rounds, and the throwing of the Jamarāt includes seven pebbles each.
Also, the Muslims memorize the Qur’an so perfectly that they have no need for the mus'hafs (copies of the Qur’an). It is narrated in the "Sahīh Collection" that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "My Lord said to me: Verily, I am sending down to you a Book which cannot be washed away by water, so that you may recite it during sleep and wakefulness." [97] Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2865).
He said: If it were washed away from the mus'hafs, it would not be washed away from the hearts, like the previous scriptures; if their copies were lost, there would be no one who could convey them through mass transmission preserved through memorization.
The Qur’an is still preserved in people's chests, being mass transmitted. Even if someone wanted to change anything in the mus'hafs, and this was presented to Muslim kids, they would recognize the change and find it strange, given their memorization of the Qur’an, without the need to check it against another mus'haf.
As for the People of the Book, one of them can write numerous copies of the Torah and the Gospel and change some of them and then present them to many their scholars. They would not recognize the changes, unless they checked it against the copies with them. Therefore, when changes were made to the copies of the Torah, they circulated among groups of them, and they did not notice the changes.
Moreover, the Muslims have chains of transmission connected to trustworthy narrators who transmitted delicate matters of the religion, as the public transmitted its major elements. This does not hold true for the People of the Book.
Also, they mentioned that their books are written in seventy-two languages. In fact, this makes them more prone to alteration than one book in one language, for lots of people memorize the one book, and thus no one can change it.
As for the books written in seventy-two languages, if it happened that some of the copies written in some languages underwent some changes, the speakers of the other languages would know about that, while the people of the other copies would not recognize that. So, changes can be made to them, as can occur to the other copies.
Their claim that it is impossible to collect all the copies constitutes an argument against them. If this is impossible to happen, then it cannot be ascertained that all the copies are the same, and no one can testify that they all have the same words and meanings. Rather, it is easier to make changes to them than testifying that they are identical.
Hence, none can change the Qur’an, for it is preserved in people's hearts and is mass transmitted. Nonetheless, we do not assert that all copies of the Qur’an are the same, for some copies many contain some errors, which can be detected by the memorizers of the Qur’an without the need for another mus'haf.
As for these books, on the other hand, each book is not memorized by a group of people through mass transmission, so that its copies can be acknowledged. When the prophets (peace be upon them) were still alive among them, they were the reference for the people in case anyone changed anything of these books. But when the prophets' era ended, changes were quick to occur.
That is why many Christians altered much of the Messiah's religion shortly after he was raised. Then, they began to alter something after another. A group of them, however, continued to adhere to the true religion until Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ).
Among those who continued to adhere to the truth, a small group remained, as related in an authentic Hadīth narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" from ‘Iyād ibn Himār al-Majāsh‘i, in which the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and disliked them, including their Arabs and non-Arabs, except for remnants of the People of the Book." [98] They died before he (ﷺ) was sent. Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2865).
Salmān al-Fārisi, who converted to Christianity from Magianism, met a group of those who had followed the religion of the Messiah (peace be upon him): one in Mosul, another one in Nisebīn, and the third in Amorium. Each one of them told him that none remained in the religion of the Messiah (peace be upon him) but a few people - till the last one of them said: [None remains in it]. He told him that a prophet would be sent with the religion of Abraham from the direction of the Hejaz. It was for this reason that Salmān immigrated and believed in him. [99] See: Sīrat Ibn Is'hāq (1/87-91).
The religion which the Muslims adopt with marked and well-known consensus is mass transmitted from their Prophet. They transmitted the Qur’an and transmitted his Sunnah. His Sunnah explains the Qur’an and clarifies it, as Allah Almighty says: {And We have sent down to you [O Prophet] the Reminder to explain to people what has been sent down to them.} [Surat an-Nahl: 44] So, what Allah revealed became clear, in terms of its words and meanings. And the meanings of the Qur’an, upon which the Muslims markedly agreed, became part of the things the Ummah successively inherited from their Prophet, as they inherited the Qur’an's words from him.
What the Ummah agreed upon - Praise be to Allah - includes nothing distorted or altered in the meanings; so, what about the words that carry those meanings? Transmitting and accepting the words by consensus is more apparent [than transmitting and accepting the meanings]. [100] This produced the clear religion for the Muslims, upon which they agreed, and they transmitted it from their Prophet, its words, and meanings. Nothing of it was distorted or altered, neither in words nor in meanings, unlike the Torah and the Gospel, some of whose words were subject to change in their meanings and rulings by the Jews and the Christians, in a way that is prominent and well known among their public. Just as the Jews altered the content of the previous books involving the prophecies about the Messiah and Muhammad (ﷺ), and the Christians altered much of the content of the Torah and the other scriptures involving information and laws that were not changed by the Messiah, the Messiah should be followed in what Allah abrogated from the Torah on his tongue. As for what was altered after the Messiah - like legalizing pork and other things that Allah prohibited and the Messiah did not make lawful, and like the revocation of circumcision, praying towards the east, putting images in churches, revering the cross, and adopting monasticism - these are laws and teachings not legislated by any prophet, neither the Messiah nor others. Thus, they contradicted the Shariah of Allah with which He sent the prophets. Allah did not prescribe these on the tongue of any prophet. In the verified original text: [the words]. See: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (2/67). This is an obvious error.
[101] The Third Aspect: That the Qur’an was ascertained through mass transmission, and it is known by necessity to both the advocates and opponents that Muhammad (ﷺ) used to say that this is the speech of Allah, not his speech; that he conveyed it from Allah; and that he used to differentiate between the Qur’an and the Sunnah he spoke; nonetheless, this is something in which he must be followed in terms of belief and application. Yet, Allah sent down to him the Book and wisdom and taught his Ummah the Book and wisdom. Allah Almighty says: {Allah has conferred a favor upon the believers when He sent them a messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and Wisdom.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 164]. Allah Almighty also says: {And remember Allah’s grace upon you and what He has sent down to you of the Book and the Wisdom, to exhort you.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 231] And the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Verily, I have been given the Book and the like of it along with it." [102] He used to teach his Ummah the Book, namely the Noble Qur’an which he told them is the speech of Allah, not his own words. Allah Almighty says about it: {Say: "If all humans and jinn were to come together to produce something similar to this Qur’an, they would not be able to produce the like of it, even if they collaborated with one another."} [Surat al-Isrā’: 88] Marginal remark/ The Qur’an's words were conveyed from the Prophet (ﷺ) through mass transmission, unlike the Gospel. Narrated by Abu Dāwūd in his "Sunan Collection" no. (4604) and Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (17447).
The Ummah received the Qur’an from him and memorized it during his lifetime. It was entirely memorized by more than one Companion during his lifetime, and there was no Companion except that he memorized part of it. Some of them would memorize parts not memorized by others, and so on. It was all heard from the Prophet (ﷺ) and taken through mass transmission. He used to say that he conveyed it from Allah and that it was Allah's speech, not his speech.
As for the Gospel in the hands of the Christians, it is four Gospels: the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of Mark. They agree that Luke and Mark did not see the Messiah, while Matthew and John saw him. And that those books, which they call the Gospel, and they may call each of them a Gospel, were written by those people after the Messiah was raised [from earth]. They did not mention therein that they are the speech of Allah or that the Messiah conveyed them from Allah. Rather, they included in them words from the Messiah and some of his actions and miracles.
They stated that they did not convey everything they heard and saw from him. So, this is like the narration of Hadīths, biographies, and battles involving the Prophet (ﷺ) and his statements and actions, which are not part of the Qur’an.
Whatever the Messiah (peace be upon him) said, he conveyed it from Allah. So, he must be believed in what he said and be obeyed in what he commanded, like what Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said in the Sunnah.
It includes what the Messenger (ﷺ) described as a statement of Allah, like the Hadīth that reads: Allah Almighty said: 'Whoever shows enmity to My ally, I declare war against him." [103] And so on. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (6502).
It also includes what he himself said, which is also part of what Allah revealed to him. So, whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah. Likewise, what is conveyed in the Gospel is of this type. If there was a command from the Messiah, his command is also the command of Allah, and whoever obeys the Messiah has obeyed Allah, and whatever the Messiah told about the Unseen, Allah informed him about it. Indeed, he is immune to lying in what he tells.
If the Gospel resembles the revealed Sunnah, indeed it may be subject to error in some of its words, as it happens in the books on biography, "Sunan Abu Dāwūd", "At-Tirmidhi", and "Ibn Mājah".
Besides, these books gained fame and were widely circulated among the Muslims. So, none can alter them altogether, given their spread and the abundance of their copies. But there may be some errors in their words, which have taken place before they rose to prominence. A Hadīth narrator, even if he is honest and upright, is prone to error. But the reports which the Muslims accepted, believed, and acted upon are categorically emphasized by most Muslims to have been authentically transmitted from their Prophet. This is the approach of the predecessors and most of the Muslim sects, such as the majority of scholars of the four schools of thought and many scholastic theologians from among the Kollābiyyah, Karrāmiyyah, Ash‘ariyyah, and other sects.
The bottom line here is: That the words of the Qur’an and its agreed-upon meanings and the authentic Sunnah are mass transmitted among the Muslims, who have a lot of reports about their Prophet whose authenticity is ascertained through various ways, like the belief of the infallible Ummah, the indication of customs, etc. They retain the Qur’an in their chests and do not need a written book for it to be preserved. If the mus'hafs were to disappear from the earth, this would not undermine the authenticity of what they memorized.
This is unlike the People of the Book. If the copies of their books were to disappear, they would not have a mass transmission chain of their words, for no one memorizes these books except a few of them, if there are any, and their memorization is not reliable. Therefore, after the period of prophethood among the People of the Book came to an end, their books were subject to alteration, either to some of their meanings and rulings or to some of their words, unless they corrected the errors. Hence, they do not have the isnād (chain of transmission) adopted by the Muslims, neither do they have evaluation, criticism, and detailed information about those who transmit knowledge, like the Muslims have. Also, there is no verbal or rational proof that they would not unanimously agree over something wrong. Actually, it has been known that they unanimously agreed over the error, namely disbelieving the Messiah and then disbelieving Muhammad (ﷺ).
If the books conveyed from the prophets are not of the same type of the books conveyed from Muhammad, were not mass transmitted from them, and the belief of the fallible does not constitute an argument, then they do not possess such knowledge that is possessed by the Muslims, to distinguish between truthfulness and falsehood.
These Gospels in the hands of the Christians, are of this type; they contain a lot of statements, actions, and miracles of the Messiah, and they also contain what is falsely attributed to him without any doubt. If their first writers were not among those who would lie intentionally, error and forgetfulness are not improbable from one, two, three, and four persons, especially when someone hears and sees something and then relates it many years later. Consequently, errors are highly likely in such a case. And there was no infallible community whose reception [104] of these books with acceptance and belief would entail knowledge about them, so that the infallible community would not unanimously agree over an error. The disciples were twelve men in total. i.e., the Gospels.
Crucifixion is one of the issues subject to uncertainty. In this regard, there is evidence that the crucified one was not the Messiah, but his lookalike. They thought him to be the Messiah, and the disciples did not see the Messiah crucified. Rather, they were informed about his crucifixion by some Jews who witnessed the incident.
While some people say that they lied intentionally, most of them say it was made to appear so to them. That is why the majority of Muslims say that the verse that reads: {but it was made to appear to them so} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] refers to them. Those who hold the first view [105] say the verse refers to those who heard the news from those people. If they were likely to commit error in this and were not infallible in its transmission, they were also likely to err in some of what they transmitted from him. This does not undermine the authenticity of the message of the Messiah or what was mass transmitted from him that he is the Messenger of Allah who must be obeyed, whether he was crucified or not, and what was mass transmitted from him must be believed in, whether he was crucified or not. i.e., they lied intentionally.
The disciples were trustworthy in what they transmitted from him and were not suspected of intentionally lying about him. But if some of them were mistaken in some of what they transmitted from him, this would not prevent others from being known, especially if the error which they committed was pointed out in other places.
The Christians differed over most of the things in which the error was committed, including the crucifixion. Some of them say the crucified one was not the Messiah, but his lookalike, a view also held by the Muslims. Others among them acknowledge his servitude to Allah and deny indwelling and unity, such as the Arians, and others deny unity, though they acknowledge indwelling, like the Nestorians.
As for the legislations they follow, their scholars know that most of them were not taken from the Messiah (peace be upon him). The Messiah did not enjoin them to pray towards the east or to fast for 50 days, and he did not prescribe fasting in the spring, Christmas, Epiphany, the Day of the Cross, or any of their festivals. Most of these were invented after the disciples, like the Day of the Cross, which was invented by Helena, the mother of Constantine.
During the era of Constantine, they changed much of the Messiah's religion - the creeds and legislations - and invented "the Nicene Creed" and made it the creed of their faith. This is a creed that was not proclaimed in any of the prophets' books with them, nor was it transmitted from any of the prophets or any of the disciples who accompanied the Messiah. Rather, it was invented by a group of their chiefs. They said: They were 318 persons. They based their view on some ambiguous phrases in the books; whereas the books contain definite phrases that contradict what they adopted.
The same applies to most of their legislations, which they put in the book, "The Biblical Canon". Some of them were transmitted from the prophets, and some from the disciples, whereas many of them were invented by them and not transmitted from any of the prophets or the disciples. They also deem it permissible for their senior scholars and religious leaders to change any legislation they wish and lay down new ones. That is why most of their legislations are invented, not revealed in a divine scripture, or prescribed by a prophet.
As for their statement: "How could our books, which are written in 72 languages, be changed, and in every language of them, there are many thousands of books, and they passed through more than six hundred years before the coming of Muhammad?"
We say to them: After their spread in this way, neither the Muslims in general nor any prominent group among them said that the words of all copies in the world were changed. But most of the Muslims who say that some of their words were changed do claim that some of their words were changed before Muhammad's mission, or some copies were changed after his mission, not that all the copies were changed. Some people say: This change took place at the early stage. Some others say: Some were changed after Muhammad's mission. They do not say: Every copy in the world has changed. Rather, they say: Some copies were changed, and others were not. Many of the altered copies appeared with a lot of people, apart from the unaltered copies, which are still possessed by some people.
It is well known that this is undeniable. No one can know whether each copy in the world in each language is verbally compatible with all other copies in all other languages, unless someone possesses full knowledge of this; however, they acknowledge that no one is capable of that.
As for those who held that the change took place in the beginning, they said: The Gospels were taken from four persons, two of whom did not see the Messiah. Only two of those who conveyed the Gospel saw him: Matthew and John. It is well known that something like that is prone to change.
As for their statement that "they are written in 72 languages," it is well known that the Messiah only spoke Hebrew like the other prophets of the Children of Israel, and that he was circumcised, being circumcised after the seventh day, as was the custom among the Children of Israel; and that he used to pray towards their Qiblah, not towards the east, nor did he command people to pray towards the east.
Whoever says that he spoke Syriac, as some people think, is mistaken. The words transmitted from him in the Gospels are in Hebrew, and then they were translated into other languages.
Translation is subject to a lot of errors. We find in our time some who translate the Torah from Hebrew into Arabic, and the translation contains many mistakes, as confirmed by honest and skilled people who know both languages.
And the Christians say that they were written in four languages: Hebrew, Roman, Greek, and Syriac.
Regarding their statement that "they were written in 72 languages," if this was true, then they were written in those languages after the four languages. So, if the error took place in certain places in the texts written in the four languages, it would not be removed thereafter by writing them in seventy-two languages. The Muslims do not say that they were written in seventy-two languages and their words were changed in all those languages and in every copy.
Rather, it is said: The change happened before that. This also applies to all statements reported from the Messiah, Moses, and Muhammad (peace be upon them), like "Sīrat of Ibn Is'hāq" and the Prophet's Hadīths narrated in the Sunan and Masānid Collections. There are numerous copies of each book of these in the world, and no change can happen to a long chapter of them. However, there are errors in certain places of the Prophet's biography, and the Sunan Collections contain Hadīths that are originally wrong. So, the subsequent spread and fame of their copies did not prevent the error that took place from the beginning. And the books of tafsīr, fiqh, and heart-softening matters. Each book has numerous copies worldwide, and no change can be applied to a long chapter in any of these books. Nevertheless, they contain Hadīths that are originally wrong.
The Gospels in the hands of the Christians are a similar case. Hence, they were commanded to judge according to what is in them, for they contain the rulings of Allah, and the words of most of their rulings were not changed. Only some of the words of the informative verses were changed, along with the meanings of some verses related to commands and instructions. We too are commanded to act upon the well-known Prophetic Hadīths related to the rulings, as the scholars were more careful in verifying them than in verifying the informative Hadīths, like those related to asceticism, stories, virtues, and so on. People need to know the commands and prohibitions more than they need to know details of certain information, about which overall belief is sufficient.
As for the commands and prohibitions, they must be known in detail. For a duty to be performed, it needs to be specified, and for a prohibited thing to be avoided, it needs to be distinct from other things. Allah Almighty says: {Allah will not cause a people to go astray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 115]
Those who say that some of their words were changed during that time argue that they were not taken from an infallible prophet or conveyed through mass transmission. Those with an opposing view among the Muslims and the People of the Book say that they were taken from Ezra, who was an infallible prophet. This needs to be verified by those who affirm it and those who deny it.
As for those who say that some of their words were changed after Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission,
they argue that the Torah and the Gospel and other scriptures contained explicit words, such as the name of Muhammad (ﷺ), and that some among the People of the Book set out to change some of the words in the copies that were with them. They do not say: that those people changed every copy on the face of the earth, but they changed some words of the copies, and then people wrote from those changed copies numerous copies that became widespread. Thus, most of the copies with many among the People of the Book belonged to those changed copies.
There are other copies in the world that remain unchanged. A lot of people mentioned that they saw and read them. Those copies contain things not found in the other copies. This is supported by the fact that if you take copies of the Torah which are with the Jews, the Christians, and the Samaritans in this time of ours, you will find differences among them in several places.
This also holds true for the copies of the Gospel. And there is a marked difference between the copies of the Psalms. Thus, a sane person would see that not all the existing copies of the Torah have the same words, and not all the copies of the Gospel have the same words, and not all the copies of the Psalms have the same words - let alone the other scriptures.
It is well known that the People of the Book cannot produce evidence that all the copies in all the languages in all corners of the globe have the same words in the content of the all existing scriptures. The argument they cited for the difficulty of changing all of them actually indicates the difficulty of knowing that they are all the same.
Regarding their statement: "If it is said that some of them were changed and some were not, this cannot be the case, for they all have the same content and words in all the languages."
We say: As for the possibility of this happening, indeed this is apparent and cannot be disputed by any sane person - and it is a reality. We saw that the Torah with the Samaritans differs from the Torah that is with the Jews and the Christians, even in "the Ten Commandments". In it, the Samaritans mentioned the meeting at Tūr in a way not found in the copies with the Jews and the Christians. Also, there is a well-known difference between the copies of the Jews and the copies of the Christians. Likewise, the copies of the Gospel are different, and there is a greater difference between the copies of the Psalms.
In any case, no sane person can say that it is impossible to change some copies. But if they say that nothing has changed in them, because they all have the same content and the same words in all the languages, their claim will be false in two ways.
First: The claim to have knowledge that all the copies are the same is stronger than the claim about the possibility of changing them. So, if change is impossible for all of them, then it is even more impossible for someone to know the content of all of them and that they have the same words in all the different languages.
Second: This claim runs counter to reality, for the difference between the copies of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms exists, and we have seen it with our own eyes, and others have seen it too. I saw several copies of the Psalms greatly differing from one another. And we saw some words of the Torah conveyed by this denomination, which were written amongst them, claiming it is the right Torah that was mass transmitted amongst them. However, some words of the Torah differ with the other denomination. This also holds true for the Gospel.
Overall, their statement "this cannot be the case, for they all have the same content and words in all the languages" comprises two things:
A false claim.
And an invalid argument.
Their statement "this cannot be the case" denotes apparent obstinacy, for the possibility of changing some copies cannot be disputed by any sane person. However, someone may say: If some copies are changed, and this becomes apparent, it spreads, and so the people having the other copies will see these copies which are different from theirs and they will reject them, as there are enough reasons and motives to reject such a thing. The like of this can happen today. If someone wants to change a famous book that has numerous copies, and he actually changes one of its copies, and it reaches people who are familiar with the content of the other copies, they will reject it.
We say: This can be right if the changed copy reaches a denomination that would not collude with others in lying. As lying is impossible in mass-transmitted reports, it is also impossible to collude to conceal what usually cannot be concealed.
It is well known that it is not impossible for a small group to conspire together to change some copies, as the copies are in the possession of the scholars of the People of the Book, and their laymen do not memorize their words as the ordinary Muslims memorize the Qur’an's words. If one of their denominations determines to change one copy or more among them, this can be done. Furthermore, if they collude with another denomination and ask them not to disclose that, this can be done. But if the denominations are such that they would not conspire together over lying or concealment, this would be impossible to happen among them.
We saw books with the People of the Book which they claim reached them from the Prophet (ﷺ) and were handwritten by ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib. They contain matters related to their purposes. These books were confusing to many Muslims, who revered their content, and they conceded to the People of the Book what is written about them in these books, thinking that they are acting upon its contents. As they reached some Muslim scholars, they demonstrated their falsity by ways known through mass transmission. An example is their statement: "Ka‘b ibn Mālik, the rabbi, confirmed what is in it from the Prophet." They mean Ka‘b al-Ahbār, who embraced Islam during ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb's era. He did not embrace Islam during the Prophet's lifetime. His name is Ka‘b ibn Māti‘. There was Ka‘b ibn Mālik, the poet, among the Ansār. Allah revealed his repentance in Surat Barā’ah. So, those ignorant people mistook him for that person.
Another example is their mention of the martyrdom of Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh, for whose death the Throne of the Most Merciful shook. They mentioned that he was martyred during the year of the battle of Khaybar; whereas the scholars agreed that he died following the battle of the Trench, well before the battle of Khaybar. There are other similar examples.
As for their weightless argument, it is their statement: "All the books of the scriptures in the world, including the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms, exist in 72 languages, with the same words and the same content." Would any sane person say that he knew that? And that he knew that each copy of the 24 scriptures in any of the 72 languages is consistent with every other copy in all the other languages? If anyone claims that every copy of the Torah in the world in Arabic, or every copy of the Gospel in the world in Arabic, or every copy of the Psalms in the world in Arabic is consistent with all the Arabic copies existing in all corners of the world, he will be claiming something he has no knowledge about, and it cannot be known. So, from where did he get that? Did he see every Arabic copy of these books, or someone who is known to be honest told him that all the Arabic copies existing in the world are consistent with this copy?
This also applies to any such claim regarding the Greek, Syriac, Roman, Hebrew, and Indian languages. If there are copies in 72 languages for each of these books in the world, then claiming that the copies in every language are the same is like the claim that all the Arabic copies are identical. So, what about the claim that all the copies in all the languages are the identical?
Let us suppose that this can be said about the copies in a language whose speakers are small in number. But how can it be said regarding a language whose people and speakers are too many and widespread?
This is not like the claim about the consistency of the Muslims' copies of the Qur’an, for the Qur’an's transmission is not limited to the mus'hafs, but it is preserved in the hearts of many thousands of Muslims, whose number is only known to Allah Almighty. If all the mus'hafs were to disappear from the world, this would not undermine the transmission of any of the words of the Qur’an, unlike the previous scriptures. You rarely find among the People of the Book someone who memorizes one of these books. There is hardly a Jew who knows the Torah by heart.
As for the Christians, none among them memorizes the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the other scriptures, let alone memorizes them in 72 languages. If there are those who memorize them, they are few, and they are not insusceptible to lying or error.
So, it has become clear that what they said about the spread of their books in the different languages is one of the strongest indications of the lack of knowledge about the similarity of the words of these books. And that if the Qur’an was transmitted in one language, and the book in this language is memorized by a large number of Muslims, this shows that none can change any of the Qur’an's words. On the other hand, it is likely some words of the Torah and the Gospel have been changed, according to many People of the Book.
The Muslims do not claim that all the words in all the copies were changed after the Prophet's (ﷺ) mission, as those ignorant people thought about them. Rather, what they claimed is reasonable and supported with evidence. Those ignorant people, however, alleged they know that all the copies in all the languages in all the books have the same words. So, they claimed what cannot be known by anyone and claimed what is known to be untrue.
The response to their statement - "Who could speak in 72 languages? And who can judge the entire world, with its kings, priests, and scholars, and is able to control them in the world's different countries and gather them in all the four corners of the globe so as to change them? As for changing some of them and leaving others, this could not be, because they all have the same speech, the same text, and the same belief" - has become apparent and it comprises a number of aspects:
[106] The First Aspect: We did not claim that they were changed after they were written in these languages and their copies became widespread. We do not even claim that any book other than the divine scriptures can be changed after its copies circulate widely, like the books on grammar, medicine, mathematics, and the Hadīths and traditions transmitted from the prophets, which were originally reported in an Āhād manner (lacking the conditions of mass transmission), and then their copies increased in number and spread. No one claims that after the spread of the copies of a certain book all over the globe, someone can rule the entire world and gather all of these copies and change them. Marginal remark/ That the Muslims claim changing the words of the Gospel refers to the first copies from which the subsequent copies were made
Neither did anyone claim the same thing with regard to the Torah and the Gospel. This was only claimed when their copies were few, either one copy, or two, or four, and so on. Or it was claimed that some words of the copies were changed, for changing some copies is possible. The copies of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms exist today, and there are some differences among some of them, albeit a slight difference. They are mostly alike.
[107] This is manifest in the second aspect: That their statement "they all have the same speech, the same text, and the same belief" is not as they said. Indeed, the copies of the Torah are different in some places, and there are differences between the Torah of the Jews, the Christians, and the Samaritans. The difference between the copies of the Psalms is greater than that. The same holds true for the copies of the Gospel. So, what about the copies of the other scriptures? Marginal remark/ The reality of the copies of the Torah and the Gospel nullifies their statement that they all have the same words
I saw a copy of the Psalms that explicitly mentions the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) by name, and then saw another copy of the Psalms and did not find that in it. Hence, it is not impossible to find in some copies mention of the Prophet's (ﷺ) traits that are not mentioned in other copies.
[108] The Third Aspect: That the alteration in interpretation is doubtless, and it achieves the relevant objective in this respect. We definitely know that mention of Muhammad (ﷺ) did exist in the Torah and the Gospel during his lifetime, as Allah Almighty says: {whose description they find in their Torah and the Gospel.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 157] There is no doubt that the copies of the Torah and the Gospel were numerous and widespread all over the world during his lifetime. This entails one of two things: Marginal remark/ That those acquainted with the Torah and the Gospel noted the difference of their copies, which disproves the claim that they are all the same.
Either the word was changed in some copies, and then the changed copies became widespread.
Or he was mentioned in all the copies, as derived by many scholars who used to be Jewish and Christian rabbis. Those who were not among their rabbis deduced his mention and the prophecy about his coming from several places in the Torah, the Gospel, and other scriptures.
If someone says that he is mentioned therein more often and in a more explicit way than that, they cannot reply to him by saying: We reviewed every copy of the Torah and the Gospel in all corners of the world and found them containing the same words. Indeed, this could only be said by a liar. No human can review every copy in all corners of the world, just as no one can change every copy in all corners of the world. If one does not know the difference between the copies, he cannot also emphasize that they all have the same words. What if it is mentioned by people who read those copies that there is such a difference in their words which reveals the falsity of the claim that they contain the same words? How can they contain the same words while they are written in different languages?
They said: "Moreover, we found in this Book a greater proof than that, like the verse in Surat ash-Shūra that reads: {and say: "I believe in every Scripture that Allah has sent down, and I have been commanded to judge fairly among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. We have our deeds, and you have your deeds. Let there be no [further] argument between us and you; Allah will bring us together, and to Him is the final return."} As for people other than the People of the Book, He says: {Say: "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship.} To the rest of the Surah. [Surat al-Kāfirūn]" [109]. Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 416).
The response:
As for His statement: {and say: "I believe in every Scripture that Allah has sent down"}, this is true, for Allah commanded him and all people to believe in all that He revealed. This also applies to His statement: {and I have been commanded to judge fairly among you.} Indeed, Allah commanded him to judge fairly among all people.
And His statement: {Allah is our Lord and your Lord. We have our deeds, and you have your deeds.} This represents disavowal by Him of those addressees, i.e., the polytheists and the People of the Book. Similarly, Allah Almighty says in another verse: {If they reject you, then say: "My deeds are mine and your deeds are yours. You are not responsible for what I do, nor am I responsible for what you do."} [Surat Yūnus: 41]
This is also similar to the verse that reads: {Say: "Do you [People of the Book] argue with us concerning Allah, when He is our Lord and your Lord? We are responsible for our deeds and you for yours, and we are sincerely devoted to Him."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 139]
Regarding the verse that reads: {Let there be no [further] argument between us and you} To the rest of the verse. This does not particularly address the Christians, but it addresses everyone. Yet, those Christians thought that this means: Do not argue with the People of the Book. Indeed, this is a distortion of Allah's words by taking them out of context, similar to their distortion of their Torah, Gospel, Psalms, and the other scriptures.
One of the indications that the Christians are not particularly addressed here is that this is a Makkan Surah, and Makkan Surahs would address those who did not read books. So, they were not related to the People of the Book, but they encompassed all communities, or particularly addressed the polytheists.
As for the verse that reads: {Let there be no [further] argument between us and you}, this is similar to the verse that reads: {Say: "Do you [People of the Book] argue with us concerning Allah, when He is our Lord and your Lord? We are responsible for our deeds and you for yours, and we are sincerely devoted to Him."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 139] Allah Almighty also says: {Then if they argue with you, say: "I have submitted myself to Allah, and so have those who follow me." And say to those who were given the Scripture and to the illiterate: "Have you submitted yourselves?" If they do, then they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the message.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 20]
The argument: refers to anything cited as a proof, be it true or false. For example, Allah Almighty says: {so that the people should not have any proof against you, except for the wrongdoers among them.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 150]
The wrongdoers cite false arguments against you, like the polytheists saying after the Qiblah was changed to the direction of the Ka‘bah: He turned back to your Qiblah, and he will turn back to your religion [110]. This is a weightless argument of the wrongdoers. See: Tafsīr At-Tabari (2/685).
This is demonstrated by His subsequent words: {As for those who argue about [the religion of] Allah after it has been accepted [by many], their argument carries no weight with their Lord; they have incurred [His] wrath, and for them there will be a severe punishment.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 16] So, He called it an argument and described it as having no weight. Those who argue about the religion of Allah after it has been accepted are the disbelievers, including the polytheists and the People of the Book. They argue with the believers in a bid to make them leave their religion. About the Christians, He Almighty says: {Whoever disputes with you concerning him [Jesus] after the knowledge has come to you, then say: "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 61]
The disbelievers used to argue with the believers with the aim of making them abandon their religion, as they would also harm them. Those people {their argument carries no weight with their Lord; they have incurred [His] wrath, and for them there will be a severe punishment.}
Their argument with the believers was done by way of wrongdoing and aggression against them and uttering falsehood. So, Allah Almighty commanded him to say: {Let there be no [further] argument between us and you}; in other words, you do not have the right to oppress and transgress against us with your false argument. This does not mean, however, that we should not argue with you and call you to the truth with the right arguments. Indeed, Allah Almighty says: {Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and reason with them in the best manner.} [Surat an-Nahl: 125]
So, Allah Almighty commanded him to argue with those generally targeted by his call - the polytheists and the People of the Book - in the best manner. Allah Almighty also says: {Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner, unless with those of them who transgress [against you].} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 46] A wrongdoer is an oppressor and transgressor who deserves punishment. So, it is permissible to subject him to the due punishment. We should not be restricted to adopting the best manner with him - unlike the case of those who did not transgress, with whom we should only argue in the best manner.
The People of the Book: It is a term that refers to the Jews and the Christians, and the Qur’an contains similar terms, like in the verse that reads: {As the food of those who were given the Book} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 5] To the rest of the verse. In another verse, Allah Almighty says: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going to desist [from disbelief].} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] There are other similar examples.
[111] As for the verses that read: {Say: "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. Never will I worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have my religion."} [Surat al-Kāfirūn: 1-6] Marginal remark/ Surat al-Kāfirūn has no indication that the Prophet (ﷺ) was pleased with the religion of the polytheists.
So, this is a command to him to address all the disbelievers, including the polytheists and the People of the Book. It does not denote that He is pleased with the religion of the polytheists or the People of the Book, as thought by some atheists. Neither does it indicate that He forbids Jihad against them, as mistakenly thought by some; and they considered it to be abrogated. Rather, it involves disavowal by him of their religion and disavowal by them of his religion, and that their deeds will not harm him, and his deeds will not bring them reward or benefit.
This is a categorical ruling that cannot be abrogated. The Messenger (ﷺ) was not ever pleased with the religion of the polytheists or the People of the Book, even for the blink of an eye. Mistaken is he who claims that he was pleased with the religion of the disbelievers, citing Allah's words: {Say: "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. Never will I worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have my religion."} [Surat al-Kāfirūn: 1-6] Such an atheist thinks that His statement: {You have your religion and I have my religion} means that he was pleased with the religion of the disbelievers. Then, he says: This verse was abrogated. So, he was pleased with the disbelievers' religion. Indeed, this is one of the most flagrant lies and fabrications about Muhammad (ﷺ). He was never pleased except with the religion of Allah with which He sent him and revealed His books. He was not ever pleased with the religion of the disbelievers, neither the polytheists nor the People of the Book.
And His statement: {You have your religion and I have my religion} does not indicate that he was pleased with their religion or that he even acknowledged it. Rather, it denotes his disavowal of their religion. Hence, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Verily, this Surah "constitutes disavowal of polytheism" [112]. Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (790) and Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (2085).
The People of the Book who did not believe in what was revealed to him from his Lord are disbelievers. He affirmed their disbelief, commanded that Jihad be conducted against them, and declared as disbelievers those who do not regard them as disbelievers and Jihad against them as a duty. Allah Almighty says: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going to desist [from disbelief] until there came to them clear proof.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] Allah Almighty also says: {Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly disbelieved.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17] {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73]
Allah Almighty also says: {Fight those of the People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor do they consider forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor adopt the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the protection tax willingly while they are humbled.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 29] "Those of" here serves to demonstrate the category of people, and "the People of the Book" and "those who do not believe" fall under one category. This differs from the case when "of" or "from" is used to refer to part of a whole, like in the verse that reads: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] After the Prophet's mission, "those who disbelieve" includes all the polytheists and the People of the Book.
They are also included in the verse that reads: {those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor do they consider forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor adopt the religion of truth [Islam]} all People of the Book who knew about his mission and did not believe in him. Also, the verse that reads: {Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds} [Surat al-Fat'h: 29]; even if all of them believed and did righteous deeds. This applies if the category includes those mentioned as well as others, but only the mentioned ones remain under this category. This is similar to saying: Here is a man from Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib, though he is the only one remaining of them.
They were described with polytheism, and that they worship other than Allah, as Allah Almighty says: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31]
So, He informs that they have taken lords besides Allah and have taken the Messiah as a lord, even though they were only commanded to worship One God. By taking lords and worshiping them besides Him, they have associated partners with Allah, far exalted and glorified is He far above what they associate.
As for the verse that reads: {Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner, unless with those of them who transgress [against you]. And say: "We believe in what is sent down to us and what was sent down to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit."} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 46] This is a command to the believers to speak the truth which Allah ordained upon them and upon all people so as to please Allah therewith and establish the argument against the opponents. This falls under argument in the best manner. This is to say true words are needed for you and your opponent to say. If he does not accept what you say, this will show his obstinacy and wrongdoing, as Allah Almighty says in another verse: {Say: "Do you [People of the Book] argue with us concerning Allah, when He is our Lord and your Lord? We are responsible for our deeds and you for yours, and we are sincerely devoted to Him."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 139]
We are the same in the fact that He is the Lord of all of us, and the deeds of everyone are directed to Him, not to anyone else. We are distinguished, however, by being sincerely devoted to Him, which entails that we are right, and you are not, and our deeds are accepted, and your deeds are rejected.
This is similar to the verse that reads: {Say: "O people of the Book, let us come to common terms between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and associate no partners with Him, and that we do not take one another as lords besides Allah." But if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah]."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 64] His command to them to say {Bear witness that we are Muslims} serves to establish the argument against them, as the Messiah (peace be upon him) used to say.
They say: "He did not say: Be Muslims to Him. Rather, 'and we', i.e., him and his Arab followers and what he came with and what is contained in his book." [113] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 416).
We say to them: This and similar speech would only be said by someone who does not understand the Qur’an or even understand the speech of people in general. If it is known from the author of a book Who says: that it was revealed by Allah or says: that He authored it, that He calls some people with numerous and explicit phrases and outward and clear actions, then when He refrains from calling them in some phrases, this does not contradict His call to them elsewhere. Rather, if He is Wise in His speech, then His refrainment from calling them in some instances constitutes appropriate wisdom. This is like the verse that reads: {Say: "Do you [People of the Book] argue with us concerning Allah, when He is our Lord and your Lord? We are responsible for our deeds and you for yours, and we are sincerely devoted to Him."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 139]
Do you think that His command to His Ummah to say {and we are sincerely devoted to Him} means: that the People of the Book are not commanded to be sincerely devoted to Allah? He mentions the command to the People of the Book to be sincerely devoted in a number of places, like the verse that reads: {Yet those who were given the Scripture did not disagree except after the clear proof came to them, although they were commanded only to worship Allah with sincere devotion to Him, being inclined to true faith, and to establish prayer and give Zakah; that is the true religion.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 4-5]
He also calls them to Islam and threatens them with punishment if they turn away from it. For example, Allah Almighty says: {Allah testifies that none has the right to be worshiped except Him, as do the angels and people of knowledge; He is the Upholder of justice. None has the right to be worshiped except Him, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. The true religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture did not dispute except after the knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy and rivalry. But whoever rejects the verses of Allah, then Allah is swift in reckoning. Then if they argue with you, say: "I have submitted myself to Allah, and so have those who follow me." And say to those who were given the Scripture and to the illiterate: "Have you submitted yourselves?" If they do, then they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the message. And Allah is All-Seeing of His slaves.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 18-20] Allah Almighty also says: {Who would forsake the religion of Abraham except a fool! We have chosen him in this world, and in the Hereafter, he will be among the righteous. When his Lord said to him, "Submit," he said: "I have submitted to the Lord of the worlds." This was enjoined by Abraham and Jacob to their offspring: "O my children, Allah has chosen for you this religion; so, do not die except as Muslims." Or were you present when death approached Jacob, when he said to his children: "What will you worship after me"? They said: "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers – Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac – the One God. And to Him we submit."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 130-133]
Allah Almighty points out that only a fool would forsake the religion of Abraham. A fool is the meaning of the phrase in Arabic "safiha nafsah", according to the more correct of the two relevant opinions, which is adopted by the grammarians of Kufa. [114] See: Sharh Al-Ashmouni Alā Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik (1/170).
Then, He informs about him that: {his Lord said to him: "Submit." He said: "I have submitted to the Lord of the worlds."} He also mentions that this was enjoined by Abraham to his children and also by Jacob to his children. Both of them said to their children: {"O my children, Allah has chosen for you this religion; so, do not die except as Muslims."} Then, He mentions that when death approached Jacob: {He said to his children: "What will you worship after me"? They said: "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers – Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac – the One God. And to Him we submit."} All those - Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob - followed Islam and enjoined others to follow it.
Allah Almighty subsequently says: {They say: "Be Jews or Christians to be guided." Say: "Rather [we follow] the religion of Abraham, the monotheist, and he was not one of the polytheists."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 135] Then Allah Almighty says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136] Then Allah Almighty says: {If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided. But if they turn away, then they are in plain dissension. Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 137]
He informs that if they turn away from believing in the same thing you believed in, as represented by your statement: {and to Him we have submitted}, then they will be in plain dissension; in other words, they will be opposing Allah and His Messenger. Allah Almighty says: {It is He Who expelled the disbelievers of the People of the Book [Banī Nadīr] from their homes as the first banishment. You did not think that they would leave, and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allah. But [the punishment of] Allah came upon them from where they did not expect and He cast dread in their hearts, destroying their homes with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So, take a lesson, O you people of insight.} To the verse that reads: {That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah, Allah is truly severe in punishment.} [Surat al-Hashr: 2-4]
His words {and to Him we submit} in Surat al-‘Ankabūt are like His words {and to Him we submit} in Surat al-Baqarah, along with calling them to Islam. Also similar are the words of the verse in Surat Āl ‘Imrān, which reads: {Say: "O people of the Book, come to common terms between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and associate no partners with Him, and that we do not take one another as lords besides Allah." But if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah]."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 64] He first calls them to Islam, which is to worship Allah alone, with no partner, and not to take one another as lords besides Allah, as Allah Almighty says: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31]
Then, Allah Almighty says: {But if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah]."} The Prophet (ﷺ) cited this verse when he wrote to Caesar, the Roman king, calling him to Islam. In the letter, he said: "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Heraclius, premier of the Romans. Peace be upon those who follow guidance. Thereafter, I call you to the call of Islam, embrace Islam and you will be safe. Embrace Islam, and Allah will give you a double reward. But if you turn away, then upon you will be the sins of the peasants. And {O people of the Book, come to common terms between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and associate no partners with Him, and that we do not take one another as lords besides Allah. But if they turn away, say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah]'}" [115]. So, the Prophet (ﷺ) invited him to Islam in the letter he sent to him. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (7) and Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (1773).
Allah Almighty also says in Surat Āl ‘Imrān: {It is not for a human being whom Allah has given the Scripture, wisdom, and prophethood to say to the people: "Be my worshipers instead of Allah." Rather, he would say: "Be devoted servants of your Lord because of your teaching of the Scripture and because of your study thereof." Nor would he order you to take angels and prophets as lords. Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allah [as Muslims]?} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 79-80] He mentions monotheism in this verse and declares as disbelievers those who take the angels and prophets as lords. So, what about those who take the rabbis and monks as lords?
Then, He mentions belief in the last Messenger, saying: {And [remember] when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying]: "After I have given you the Book and wisdom, if there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, then you must believe in him and support him." Allah said: "Do you affirm this covenant and accept this commitment?" They said: "Yes, we do." He said: "Then bear witness and I am with you among the witnesses." Whoever turns away after this, it is they who are the rebellious. Do they seek other than the religion of Allah, whereas to Him submit all those in the heavens and on earth, willingly or unwilling, and to Him they will return? Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit." Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 81-85]
He mentioned that He took the covenant of the prophets and their communities that no matter what {I have given you the Book and wisdom, if there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, then you must believe in him and support him.} This comprises a command to the people of every scripture that if there comes to them a second messenger, they must believe in him and support him, regardless of possessing a book and wisdom. They should not say: The book and wisdom we have are enough for us, and we will not believe in the messenger who has come to us.
And we single out belief in Muhammad (ﷺ), for he is the last Messenger who came in confirmation of the scripture before him. So, it is incumbent upon those to whom he came to believe in him and support him, no matter what book and wisdom they have.
Allah took this covenant from the prophets, and they took it from their communities. Then, He says: {Do they seek other than the religion of Allah?} This is the religion of Allah with which He sent His messengers and revealed His books. So, if anyone seeks a religion other than it, he actually seeks a religion other than the religion of Allah. This is the religion of Islam: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85]
Then, they said: "As for the wrongdoers, none is in doubt that they are the Jews, who prostrated to the calf's head, committed disbelief in Allah many times, not once, killed His prophets and messengers, worshiped idols, and offered sacrifices to the devils, not only speechless animals, but their sons and daughters, as attested against them by Allah through the tongue of Prophet David (peace be upon him) in the Psalms. Psalm 105 says: 'They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the devils, and they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and their daughters which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan. The land was polluted with blood and defiled with their works. They went aside after their own inventions. The Lord was exceedingly angry with them: and he abhorred their inheritance.'" [116] See: The Psalms (106: 37-40).
He also said by the tongue of Prophet Isaiah (peace be upon him): "Allah says about the Israelites: They did not listen to My commandments. They did not keep all what I advised them to do. Rather, they changed and broke the covenant which I gave them forever. Therefore, I made them sit in sadness and ruin and destroyed them, and those of them who remain are separated from joy and pleasure." [117] See: Book of Isaiah (24: 5-6).
This is what Allah said about the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Israelites: "I shall disperse them among the nations. In those days, nations raise their voices and glorify Allah and extol Him with loud voices. They will gather from different parts of the world, from the islands of the sea, and from faraway lands, and sanctify the name of Allah. They will return to Allah, the God of Israel, and will be His people. As for the Israelites, they will be dispersed in the land." [118] See: Book of Isaiah (24:1).
Prophet Isaiah (peace be upon him) said: Allah says: "O Israelites, you defiled My sacred mountain. I shall destroy you with war and you will die. This is because I called you and you did not respond, and talked to you and you did not listen, and you did evil before Me." [119] See: Book of Isaiah (65: 11-12).
Isaiah also said: "Allah hated the Israelites and drove them out of their houses and His house, and He shall not forgive them, because they are a curse and were made the object of curse among people. Therefore, Allah destroyed them and dispersed them among the nations, and He will not come to show mercy to them and will not look at them with mercy for all eternity. They will not present an offering or a sacrifice on that day and at that time, and the Israelites will not be joyful, because they strayed away from Allah, Exalted be He." [120] I did not find this text in Book of Isaiah (peace be upon him).
Prophet Jeremiah (peace be upon him) said: "Just as an Abyssinian cannot be white, the Israelites cannot give up their malicious habit. Therefore, I will not show mercy, compassion, or leniency towards the malicious nation, and I will not feel pity for them." [121] See: Book of Jeremiah (13: 23-24).
Prophet Ezekiel (peace be upon him) said: "Allah said: I took My Hand off the Israelites and dispersed them among the nations, because they did not obey My command and disobeyed Me in what I said to them and did not listen to Me." [122] See: Book of Ezekiel (20: 15-16).
Plenty of similar statements exist in the Torah, the scriptures of the prophets, and the Psalms of David, which the Jews recite in their churches, and they acknowledge them and do not deny a single letter thereof. What we have is similar to what they have, in all languages. [123] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 416), to the end of David's statement in the Psalms, and from Isaiah's statement to the end of the text - this is missing in the printed copy available to us.
In response, we say:
As for the Jews being wrongdoers, disbelievers, and transgressors who deserve Allah's torture and punishment, this is known by necessity and mass transmitted in the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ). It is known by necessity and mass transmitted from him (ﷺ) that the Christians are also wrongdoers, transgressors, and disbelievers who deserve Allah's torture and punishment.
The Jews have certain aspects of disbelief that do not exist in the Christians, and vice versa. The Jews altered the law of the Torah before the Messiah, son of Mary, came to them, and when he came to them, they disbelieved and rejected him, and when Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent, they rejected him, thus incurring wrath upon wrath, as Allah Almighty says about them: {We gave Moses the Scripture and sent a succession of messengers after him. We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that every time a messenger comes to you [O Israelites] with something against your desires, you become arrogant; some of them you rejected, and others you killed? They say: "Our hearts are wrapped." Nay, Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, little it is that they believe. A Book came to them from Allah, confirming that which is with them – although they used to pray for victory over the disbelievers in the past. But when there came to them what they recognize [to be true], they rejected it. May the curse of Allah be upon the disbelievers! How miserable is the price for which they sold their souls – disbelieving in Allah’s revelation out of jealous hatred that Allah would send down His grace to whom He wills of His slaves. Thus, they have incurred wrath upon wrath, and for the disbelievers there will be a disgracing punishment. When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has sent down," they say: "We only believe in what was sent down to us," and they deny what came afterwards, although it is the truth confirming that which is with them. Say: "Then why did you kill the prophets of Allah before, if you were truly believers?"} [Surat al-Baqarah: 87-91] So, He became displeased with them first for rejecting the Messiah and then for rejecting Muhammad (ﷺ). [124] See also: [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 112] and [Surat al-Mā’idah: 78-79].
Allah Almighty also says: {Say: "Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah? Those who have been cursed by Allah and incurred His wrath, and He turned them into monkeys and pigs, and devil worshipers."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 60] So, it has become clear that the Jews incurred Allah's curse, worshiped false gods, and Allah transformed some of them into monkeys and pigs. Statements similar to this are abundant in the Qur’an. Yet, the view of those who say that they are the ones meant by: {unless with those of them who transgress [against you]} in the verse that reads: {Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner, unless with those of them who transgress [against you]} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 46] is clearly mistaken. Therefore, it is deemed untrue by consensus among the Muslims. Indeed, His statement: {Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner} forbids arguing with the People of the Book - the Jews and the Christians - except in the best manner. And His statement: {unless with those of them who transgress [against you]} refers to both sides.
Hence, it is obligatory upon the Muslims when the Jews or Christians argue with them, to argue with them in the best manner, except with those who transgress among both groups. Those should be punished, sometimes verbally and sometimes physically, as Allah commanded His Messenger to conduct Jihad against the transgressors among these and those. The Prophet (ﷺ) conducted Jihad against the Jews who lived in Madīnah and the surrounding areas. He fought Banu Qaynuqā‘, Banu an-Nadīr, Banu Qurayzhah, the people of Khaybar, the people of Wādi al-Qura, and others.
He also conducted Jihad against the Christians during the year of the battle of Tabūk. He invaded them in the Levant, including the Arabs and Romans among them, and before that, he sent his deputies to invade them, namely Zayd ibn Hārithah, Ja‘far ibn Abi Tālib, and ‘Abdullāh ibn Rawāhah. He commanded the Muslims to invade them. The rightly-guided Caliphs invaded them after his departure.
When the Christian Najrān delegation came to the Prophet (ﷺ), he argued with them in his mosque in the best manner. Then, Allah Almighty commanded him to call them for mubāhalah (invocation of Allah's curse), which they refused to do with him. Instead, they accepted to pay the tribute willingly while they were humbled, as previously mentioned in detail.
So, he argued with some of them in the best manner and punished and conducted Jihad against the transgressors among them, as he punished the transgressors among the Jews.
Most strange is their statement: "As for the wrongdoers, none is in doubt that they are the Jews." It resembles their other statement: "Moreover, we found in this Book a greater proof than that, like the verse in Surat ash-Shūra that reads: {and say: 'I believe in every Scripture that Allah has sent down, and I have been commanded to judge fairly among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. We have our deeds, and you have your deeds.'"} [Surat ash-Shūra: 15]
This is also similar to their statement on the verses that read: {This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous, who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them.} They said He meant by the Book: The Gospel. And by {who believe in the unseen}, He meant: the Christians. {And those who believe in what has been sent down to you [O Prophet] and in what was sent down before you.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 4] They are the Muslims. They claimed that this view is apparent and unambiguous.
[125] The Christians' interpretation of the divine scriptures involves distortion of Allah's words and deviation in His names and verses in a way that needs a lot of time to describe and never ceases to be surprising. Yet, their audacity in interpreting the Qur’an through deviation and distortion is far more surprising. An example is their statement that Muhammad (ﷺ) said that he was not sent to them and that he praised the religion they are adhering to after its abrogation and alteration, following his mission, and that His words: {the path of those whom You have blessed} [Surat al-Fātihah: 7] refer to the Christians! And His words: {We have sent Our messengers} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] refer to the disciples! And His words: {and We sent down with them the Scripture} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25] refer to the Gospel! Marginal remark/ The invalidity of the Christians' interpretation of the divine scriptures
Indeed, this is apparent lying and fabrication about Muhammad (ﷺ) that he meant these things. Similar are their fabrications about the other prophets. They said, for example, that the Messiah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that this is mentioned in the Torah, the Psalms, and other scriptures. Besides, they claimed something that every sane person knows was not intended by Muhammad (ﷺ), saying: No one is in doubt about that; and it is a clear and unambiguous view!
Whoever is familiar with the life of Muhammad (ﷺ) and the Qur’an and the religion he came with will possess sure and necessary knowledge that Muhammad (ﷺ) would not regard the Christians as believers apart from the Jews. Rather, he used to consider both groups to be disbelievers and command the Muslims to conduct Jihad against them, and he declared as disbelievers those who do not regard Jihad against them as a duty.
This is agreed upon by consensus among the Muslims and was mass transmitted from their Prophet. This is even known from his life to both the advocates and the opponents, with the exception of those who are too ignorant about his life or apparently obstinate.
As for the texts they transmitted from their prophets which point to the disbelief of the Jews, we do not dispute them, nor do we need to cite them for evidence. Nonetheless, the texts authentically transmitted from the prophets do actually demonstrate their disbelief when they altered the religion of Moses (peace be upon him), as the Christians became disbelievers when they altered the religion of the Messiah. This is true and consistent with what the final Prophet (ﷺ) stated. Indeed, we knew about their disbelief from someone about whose truthfulness we have no doubt.
Regarding what they tell us about the prophets, we believe what we know to be true and reject what we know to be false, and if we do not know whether something is true or false, we do not believe or reject it; rather, we say: {"We believe in what is sent down to us and what was sent down to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit."} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 46]
Belief in all that was given to the prophet is a duty. But the duty to believe in something specific which we have no knowledge about is conditional upon two requirements: The words should belong to the prophet, and the meaning with which they interpreted them should be the intent of the prophet who uttered them. So, the transmission of the text should be authentic, and the connotation of its content should be right.
These two requirements must be fulfilled in all that is transmitted from the prophets. A third requirement may be needed in the case of someone who does not know Hebrew, for Moses, David, the Messiah, and other prophets spoke Hebrew. So, whoever does not know it [126], and rather he knows Arabic or Roman, must know that the translator from that language to this one has rendered an identical translation. i.e., he cannot understand or speak it.
As for their statement: "We, the Christians, did nothing of what the Jews did." [127] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 416).
We say to them: Disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience do not exclusively exist in the sins of the Jews. If you did not commit the same bad deeds as theirs, you actually did and said certain things some of which are worse than the disbelief of the Jews. Although you are more lenient and friendly than the Jews, you are yet more ignorant and misguided than them.
Allah Almighty says: {All praise be to Allah Who has sent down upon His slave the Book, and has not allowed any crookedness therein, an upright Book, to warn of a severe punishment from Him, and to give glad tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds, that they will have a good reward, wherein they will abide forever; and to warn those who say: "Allah has begotten a son." They have no knowledge of it, nor did their forefathers. What a monstrous word that comes out of their mouths! They say nothing but lies.} [Surat al-Kahf: 1-5]
Allah Almighty also says: {O you who believe, there are many rabbis and monks who consume people’s wealth unlawfully and prevent people from Allah’s way.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 34]
And Allah Almighty says: {Say: "O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77]
[The Tenth Misconception: Negating polytheism from them]
Then, they said: "This Book also reads: {You will surely find that the most hostile people towards the believers are the Jews and those who associate partners with Allah, and you will surely find that the closest of them in affection to the believers are those who say: "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks, and they are not arrogant.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 82]
So, He mentioned the priests and monks, lest someone may say: This was said about other people, not us. By this, He pointed to our actions and good intentions, and He negated polytheism from us by saying: The Jews and those who associate partners with Allah are the most hostile to the believers, and those who say 'We are Christians' are the closest in affection." [128] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 416-417).
In response, we say:
The context is completed by the verses that read: {When they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of recognizing the truth. They say: "Our Lord, we believe, so record us among those who testify [to the truth]. Why should we not believe in Allah and the truth that has come to us? And we hope that our Lord will include us in the company of the righteous people." So, Allah rewarded them for what they said with gardens under which rivers flow, abiding therein forever. Such is the reward of those who do good.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 83-85] Allah Almighty does not promise the reward in the Hereafter except to those who believe in Muhammad (ﷺ); about whom He says: {When they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of recognizing the truth. They say: "Our Lord, we believe, so record us among those who testify [to the truth]."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 83]
The witnesses are those who testify to his message, testifying that none is worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Those are the witnesses about whom He says: {Thus, We made you a balanced nation, so that you may be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger a witness over you.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 143]. That is why Ibn ‘Abbās and others commented on His words: {so record us among those who testify}, saying: With Muhammad (ﷺ) and his Ummah.
Anyone who testifies to the truthfulness of the prophets is among the witnesses, like the disciples who are quoted in the Qur’an as saying: {Our Lord, we believe in what You have sent down and we follow the messenger; so, count us among those who bear witness [to the truth].} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 53]
As for what He says in the first part of the verse: {You will surely find that the most hostile people towards the believers are the Jews and those who associate partners with Allah, and you will surely find that the closest of them in affection to the believers are those who say: "We are Christians."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 82]
This is as Allah Almighty informs. The hostility of the polytheists and the Jews towards the believers is greater than the Christians' hostility, and the Christians are closer in affection towards them. Indeed, the Jews are known to have this attitude. The Jews possess such hatred, envy, and animosity that do not exist in the Christians, and the Christians possess such mercy and affection that do not exist in the Jews.
Hatred is the root of animosity. The Jews hated their prophets; so, what about their hatred towards the believers!
The Christians, on the other hand, do not have in the religion they follow hostility or hatred towards the enemies of Allah who fought Allah and His Messenger and spread corruption in the land. So, what about their hostility and hatred towards the believers, the moderate people, the followers of Abraham's religion, who believe in all scriptures and messengers!
This constitutes no praise for the Christians for believing in Allah or having the promise of salvation from the punishment and deserving the reward. It only informs that they are closer in affection.
Regarding the part of the verse that reads: {That is because among them are priests and monks, and they are not arrogant.} [Surat al-Mā'idah: 82] i.e., because of those people and their lack of arrogance, affection exists in them, and this makes them better than the polytheists and closer in affection than the Jews and the polytheists.
Then, Allah Almighty says: {When they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of recognizing the truth.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 83] He praises those with belief and promises them the reward in the Hereafter. Although the pronoun here is still connected to the previously mentioned people, it actually refers to them as a whole, not every one of them. This is like the verse that reads: {Those to whom people said: "Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them." But it only increased them in faith, and they said: "Allah is Sufficient for us, and He is the best Protector."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 173]
It is as if that people, as a category, said to them: that people, as a category, have gathered. Generality here is not possible, for those who made this statement are people, those addressed are people, and those talked about are people. It could not be that all people said to all people that all people have gathered against you.
Another example is the verse that reads: {The Jews say: "Ezra is the son of Allah."} [Surat at-Tawbah: 30] i.e., the Jews as a category said this; it was not said by every Jew. Also falling under this is saying that the Christians have such softness in their hearts that drives them to believe, which does not exist in the Jews - and this is true.
As for their statement "and He negated polytheism from us," there is no doubt that Allah makes a distinction between the polytheists and the People of the Book in a number of places, and He describes those of them who associate partners with Him in some other places. He even differentiates between the Sabians, the Magians, and the polytheists in some places. Both things are true. An example of the first is the verse that reads: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] And the verse that reads: {Indeed, those who believe, those who are Jews, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians and those who associate partners with Allah.} [Surat al-Hajj: 17] And the verse that reads: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 82]
As for Him ascribing polytheism to them, He says: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31] So, He exalts Himself far above their association of partners, as their religion originally did not contain polytheism. Verily, Allah Almighty sent His messengers with monotheism and the prohibition of polytheism, as He says: {Ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before you: Did We appoint gods to be worshiped besides the Most Compassionate?} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 45] Allah Almighty also says: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and shun false gods."} [Surat an-Nahl: 36] And Allah Almighty says: {We never sent before you [O Prophet] any messenger without revealing to him that none has the right to be worshiped except Me, so worship Me.} [Surat al-Anbiyā’: 25]
The Messiah (peace be upon him) and the messengers before him called to the worship of Allah alone, with no partner. The Torah includes numerous examples of this to be easily counted. None of the prophets called for any king, prophet, star, or idol to be worshiped or supplicated, neither did they call for intercession to be asked of Allah through a dead or absent person, be he a prophet or a king. None of the prophets enjoined anyone to supplicate to the angels, saying "intercede for us with Allah", or supplicate to the prophets and the righteous, dead and absent, saying "intercede for us with Allah", or that images should be made of them in the form of three-dimensional statues or images on the walls; neither did they make supplication or reverence towards their statues an act of piety and worship, regardless of whether they intend to supplicate to the people depicted by these statues, revere them, seek their intercession, and ask them to implore Allah Almighty, and they use those statues as a reminder about those people, or they intend to supplicate to the statues themselves, not having the feeling that they supplicate to the people depicted by them, as ignorant polytheists used to do. Nonetheless, in all of these, they actually worship the devil, albeit they do not intend it. He may appear to them in the image of someone they revere, for example saying: I am Al-Khidr, I am the Messiah, I am George, I am Shaykh so-and-so. This happened to a number of those ascribed to be Muslims and Christians. The devil may also penetrate some statues and address the people, and he may fulfill some of their needs. Due to this and similar reasons, polytheism emerged in the past and present, and the Christians and the likes of them engaged in such acts of polytheism.
On their part, the prophets, and the messengers (peace be upon them) forbade all these things, and none of them sanctioned any of this.
The Christians do not extol three-dimensional idols, but they extol painted images. So, they do not follow pure monotheism, and they are not like the polytheists who worship idols and reject the messengers. Hence, Allah sometimes differentiates between them and the polytheists, and at other times He rebukes them for the polytheism they invented.
When the term Shirk (polytheism) is used, a group of Muslims consider all the disbelievers to be included in it from the People of the Book and others, like in the verse that reads: {And do not give your women in marriage to polytheist men until they believe.} {Do not marry polytheist women until they believe.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 221]
Some people regard this term as generally applying to all disbelievers, especially the Christians, and some of them forbid marriage to them. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar used to forbid marriage to Christian women, saying: "I do not know of any polytheism worse than them saying: that Jesus is their lord." [129] This view is adopted by a group of Shiites and others. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (5285).
As for the majority of the scholars among the earlier and later generations, they legalize marriage to women from the People of the Book and deem it lawful to eat from their slaughtered animals. But if they say that the term "polytheists" is general, they say that this verse is exclusive or is abrogated by the verse in Surat al-Mā’idah, which reads: {As the food of the people of the Book is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And [it is lawful to marry] chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, provided that you give them their dowries in honest wedlock, neither fornicating nor taking them as secret lovers.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 5]
Some others regard the term "polytheists", if used generally, as not applying to the People of the Book.
As for polytheism existing among the Christians, as mentioned by Allah, this is agreed upon by consensus among the Muslims and stated by the Qur’an. The Muslims also agree that in the verse that reads: {You will surely find that the most hostile people towards the believers are the Jews and those who associate partners with Allah, and you will surely find that the closest of them in affection to the believers are those who say: "We are Christians."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 82], the Christians are not included under the term "those who associate partners with Allah", as they also do not fall under the term "the Jews".
Similar is the verse that reads: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1] And other verses as well. This is because a single term may give various connotations when it is used separately or in association with something else. When used individually and separately, it means something different when it is associated with something else. Examples are the terms "what is good" and "what is evil" in the verse that reads: {He enjoins them to do what is good and forbids them from what is evil.} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 157] He refers here to all what Allah commanded, which is good, and all that He forbade, which is evil.
Likewise, wickedness in the verse that reads: {for indeed prayer restrains one from immoral acts and wickedness.} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 45] He mentions immoral acts in association with wickedness.
And the verse that reads: {Allah enjoins justice, kindness, and giving relatives [their dues], and He forbids shameful acts, evil deeds, and oppression. He exhorts you, so that you may take heed.} [Surat an-Nahl: 90] He couples shameful acts with evil deeds and oppression. [130] Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) mentioned two other examples, namely the terms of "righteousness" and "faith" and the terms of "poor" and "destitute". These terms give different connotations when used separately than when they are associated with other words. See the verses: [Surat al-Baqarah: 177], [Surat al-Mā’idah: 2], and [Surat at-Tawbah: 60]. See also: Al-Jawāb As-Sahīh (2/139-140).
Similarly, the term "polytheism" in a verse like the following one, which reads: {the polytheists are impure, so do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 28] It encompasses all the disbelievers, including the People of the Book and others, according to most of the scholars, for He mentions it individually and separately. Yet, when it is coupled with "the People of the Book", they fall under two categories.
In the "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Buraydah reported that whenever the Prophet (ﷺ) sent a commander over a detachment or an army, he would advise him to fear Allah with regard to himself and to treat the Muslims under his leadership well. He (ﷺ) would say to them: "Fight in the name of Allah for the sake of Allah; fight those who disbelieve in Allah." [131] The incident in this Hadīth took place after the revelation of the verse on the tribute, which was revealed during the year of the battle of Tabūk, when the Prophet (ﷺ) fought the Christians in the Levant and the Jews in Yemen. Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (1731).
This ruling is proven by consensus among the Muslims with regard to the People of the Book, as established by the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
They said: "And He says in Surat al-Baqarah: {The believers and those who were Jews, Christians, and the Sabians [before Muhammad] – whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteous deeds, they will have their reward with their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 62] Thus, with this statement, He considers all people as equal: the Jews, the Muslims, and others." [132] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 417).
In response, we say:
Firstly: You have no argument in this verse to support your claim. Indeed, He puts you with the Jews and the Sabians on the same footing. You agree with the Muslims that the Jews are disbelievers ever since the Messiah was sent and they rejected him. The same holds true for the Sabians, for a messenger was sent to them and they rejected him; so, they are disbelievers.
If the verse contains praise for the religion you follow after Muhammad's mission, then it contains praise for the religion of the Jews as well, which is regarded as false by you and the Muslims. And if it does not praise the religion of the Jews after its abrogation and alteration, it does not praise the religion of the Christians after its abrogation and alteration. The same can be said to Jews who cite this verse as a proof for the validity of their religion.
Moreover, the Christians regard the Jews as disbelievers. So, if their religion is true, this entails disbelief of the Jews; and if it is false, this entails falsity of their religion. Hence, one of the two religions must be false. Thus, the verse could not be praising them as it equates between them. So, it became known that the verse does not praise any of them after the abrogation and alteration. Rather, the verse means: The believers in Muhammad (ﷺ), the Jews who followed Moses (peace be upon him) and adhered to his law before the abrogation and alteration, the Christians who followed the Messiah (peace be upon him) and adhered to his law before the abrogation and alteration, and the devoted Sabian believers, like the Arabs and others who followed the religion of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac before the abrogation and alteration.
[The Eleventh Misconception: Praising the offerings of the Christians]
They said: "Then, He praised our offerings and threatened us if we neglect what we have and disbelieve in what was sent down to us and that He will subject us to such a punishment that He never inflicted upon anyone in the world," according to His words in Surat al-Mā’idah: {And [remember] when the disciples said: "O Jesus, son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven?" He said: "Fear Allah, if you are believers."} To the words: {"but if anyone among you disbelieves afterwards, I will subject him to a punishment that I have never punished anyone in the world."} [Surat al-Ma’idah: 112-115] The table: It is the sacred offering which is offered in every mass." [133] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 417).
In response, we say: This is flagrant lying about the Qur’an as regards this verse, as you lied about it regarding other verses. Indeed, none of the verses mentions your offerings whatsoever. Rather, there is mention of the table which Allah Almighty sent down during the Messiah's time.
As for their statement that "the table is the offering presented in every Mass:"
First: It is a statement not supported by any proof.
Second: It is a statement known to be false by necessity in the religion of the Muslims who transmitted this Qur’an from Muhammad (ﷺ) with its words and meanings. They agree that the table is a table which Allah sent down from heaven during the Messiah's time. Its story is told in most books and known to everyone, the elite, and the general public. No one said it refers to the offerings of the Christians, and nothing in the verse gives this indication. Rather, it indicates otherwise. The verse points out that the table was sent down from heaven, whereas their offerings were with them on earth and were not sent down from heaven.
It is mentioned in the verse that Jesus said: {"O Allah, our Lord, send down to us from heaven a table as a feast for us – for our present and future generations – and as a sign from You; and grant us provision, for You are the Best of Providers." Allah said: "I will send it down to you, but if anyone among you disbelieves afterwards, I will subject him to a punishment that I have never punished anyone in the world."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 114-115]
Earlier, Allah Almighty said: {And [remember] when the disciples said: "O Jesus, son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven?" He said: "Fear Allah, if you are believers." They said: "We wish to eat from it and let our hearts be reassured and to know that you told us the truth, and to be witnesses to it."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 112-113] How could this be related to their offerings today?
They said: "And given the aforementioned words, for it is inappropriate for rational people to overlook "the Holy Spirit" and "the Word of Allah", whose greatness He attests to in this Book. About "the Word of Allah", He says: {There will be none from the People of the Book but will believe in him [upon his return] before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 159] [134]. Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 417).
The response: Indeed, Allah Almighty did not send Muhammad (ﷺ) with a religion that neglects the due right of the Messiah (peace be upon him); rather, He commanded him to believe in the Messiah and what he came with, as He commanded him to believe in Moses and what he came with. Just as He commanded the Messiah to believe in Moses and what he came with, He also enjoined neglecting the invented religion which He did not lay down by the tongue of the Messiah (peace be upon him) and whatever Allah abrogated of his legislation by the tongue of Muhammad (ﷺ); so, the abrogated and altered religion must be neglected, just as Allah commanded the Messiah to neglect the religion invented by the Jews which He did not lay down and whatever Allah abrogated of the legislation of Moses which He abrogated.
As Allah Almighty commanded the Messiah to neglect what was altered and abrogated in the Torah with which Moses (peace be upon him) came, and this did not constitute neglect of the due right of the Torah and Moses (peace be upon him), likewise, if what was altered and abrogated in the religion of the people of the Gospel was neglected, this would not constitute neglect of the due right of the Gospel and the Messiah. In fact, what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with includes belief in all the books and messengers, with no distinction between any of them, and submission to Allah. Allah Almighty says: {Say [O believers]: "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136]
They said: Then, he testified for our offerings and sacrifices that they are sacred and accepted by Allah, based on the books of the Jews which are in their hands today and which were sent down from Allah to the mouths of the sent prophets.
Isaiah said: "Allah said: I know the Israelites and their hard malicious hearts. If I appear to the nations, and they look at My dignity, I will establish from them prophets and send from them saviors, who will deliver the nations from the faraway lands which did not listen to My speech or know My dignity before. My name will be among them, and they will bring their brothers from all the nations and will bring the offerings of Allah above mounts and ships to a sacred mountain, Baitul-Maqdis. They will present to Me offerings with semolina, as the Israelites used to do before, and the rest of nations. They will present the offerings before Me, they, and their crops forever, and will perform pilgrimage every year and every month, and from year to year to Baitul-Maqdis, the House of Allah. They will present to their Lord their pure and clean offerings and look at the rebellious malicious nation, the Israelites - their sadness will not vanish and their affliction will not come to an end, forever." [135] See: Book of Isaiah (66: 18-23).
Prophet Daniel (peace be upon him) said: "Seventy weeks will come upon your people and your holy city, sins will come to an end, and misdeeds and forgiveness of sins will vanish. The truth which did not come down before will be brought, and the prophets' prophecies and the messengers' books will be completed. The city of Jerusalem will be destroyed and ruined with the coming of the Messiah, and the ancient covenant from people will be destroyed. After one week and a half, the sacrifices and offerings of the Jews will be abolished, and they will be in impurity and evil till the end of time." [136] See: Book of Daniel (9: 10-17).
Prophet Micah (peace be upon him) said: "Allah said at the end of times: When the Messiah comes to call the dispersed nations, [he will] make them one people and abolish the fighting of the Israelites, their arms and their offerings forever." [137] I did not find this text in the Book of Micah.
Prophet Amos said: "Do not slaughter the calves now. The Lord will come to Zion and give a new pure commandment from clean bread and pure wine, and the Israelites will become expelled." [138] [139] See: Book of Amos (6: 4-7). This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
The response is based on the following aspects:
The First Point: As regards the texts transmitted from the prophets (peace be upon them) which they cite as arguments, there are four requirements:
The one from whom the text is transmitted should be known to be a prophet.
The very words he uttered should be known.
The text they cite should be known to be a valid translation of his statement, for these prophets did not speak Arabic or even Roman, Syriac, or Greek; rather, they spoke Hebrew, like the Messiah (peace be upon him).
The fourth requirement is that the text they cite from the prophets' words should be known to serve as evidence for their claim about accepting their offerings at this time.
We will only address here this fourth requirement. Indeed, nothing in what they cited constitutes evidence for praising their offerings and sacrifices after the alteration and abrogation. At most, they could indicate praise before abrogation and alteration, something the Muslims do not dispute.
The Second Point: These mentioned descriptions of Isaiah and other prophets are not consistent with the views held by the Christians. The Christians do not make offerings of semolina, as the Children of Israel used to do in the past, and they do not make pilgrimage every month and every year to Jerusalem, the House of Allah, and make pure and clean offerings to their Lord there; rather, they make pilgrimage to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, outside the House of Allah where the prophets used to visit and offer their prayer. The prophets used to pray in Bayt al-Maqdis and visit Bayt al-Maqdis itself. As for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, no mention is made of it in the scriptures of the prophets (peace be upon them). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher emerged during the era of Emperor Constantine. When his mother, Helena, came to Jerusalem, she chose three Jews and asked them to lead her to the location of crucifixion, which they refused to do. As a result, she punished them with imprisonment and starvation. So, they led her to its location in a dump site. They extracted it, and she put it in a cover of gold and carried it. In its place, she ordered the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, as mentioned by Ibn al-Batrīq in his "Tarīkh" book, 300 years after the Messiah.
Since then, they displayed the cross and marked "the Day of the Cross", which was neither legislated by the Messiah nor the disciples. This is mentioned in their books and subject to consensus among their scholars.
The Third Point: What they mentioned about "Daniel" does not contain praise for their religion after the abrogation and alteration. Rather, it tells that Allah will send the Messiah (peace be upon him) with the enduring truth, which is the religion with which the messengers were sent before him, enjoining the worship of Allah alone, and that "Bait al-Maqdis" will be ruined with the coming of the Messiah and the ancient covenant will come to an end, namely the abrogated law of the Torah; and that he will abolish the sacrifices and offerings of the Jews.
This all indicates the abrogation of the law of the Torah and the abolishment of the state of the Jews. It also indicates that the Messiah came with the truth and the Messiah's followers adhered to the truth. This is not disputed by the Muslims, who agree that whoever adhered to the Messiah's teachings were among the righteous servants of Allah; yet anyone who introduces laws not brought by the Messiah or wants to follow his laws after they were abrogated, they are like the Jews, whose laws were abrogated by Allah as He abolished their state. Allah Almighty did the same with the Christians. When He sent Muhammad (ﷺ), He removed their state from the central and best part of the world, where the prophets were sent, like the land of the Levant, Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, and He banished them to the remotest areas of the earth to the north and the south. The best condition for those of them who remained in the central part of the land, if they did not embrace Islam, was for them to pay the tribute willingly while they are humbled.
Likewise, what they mentioned about "Micah" and "Amos" points to the coming of the Messiah (peace be upon him) and the invalidity of the laws and dominion of the Jews that were abolished by Allah. It does not indicate the validity of the religion of the Christians which was not legislated by the Messiah (peace be upon him) or its validity after it was abrogated by the Shariah of Muhammad (ﷺ), an abrogation more profound than the abrogation of some of the laws of Moses by the laws of the Messiah (peace be upon him).
This is if the temporary laws are labelled with an unknown purpose in terms of abrogation, for the former did not talk about the coming of the latter; if the former talked about the coming of the latter, and the laws of the former were temporary until the coming of the latter, this would not be called abrogation. The Messiah and Muhammad (peace be upon both of them) did not abrogate anything. Rather, the laws of Moses continued until the coming of the Messiah, and the Messiah's laws continued until the coming of Muhammad (ﷺ).
As for what is reported from Isaiah about Allah that He said: "And when I appear to the communities," the Christians may use this and other statements of the prophets (peace be upon them) as a proof for the Hulūl (indwelling) they invented - which is false. This word occurs in the books of the People of the Book in a number of places, and nothing of these occurrences means the indwelling of Allah's Essence in any human, as mentioned in the Torah that Allah Almighty appeared in splendor to Abraham and others, and that Allah will come from Tūr Sinai, reveal Himself from Seir, and appear in splendor from Mount Paran.
It is well known among all adherents of religions that Allah Almighty did not indwell in Moses or others when He spoke to him and He does not indwell in anything in the mountains of Paran, though He said that He appeared in splendor from there.
Allah Almighty says: {It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, so that He may make it prevail over all other religions.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 33] So, He made it prevail through knowledge, argument, and rhetoric, and He made it prevail through force. Allah Almighty says: {Allah is the Light of the heavens and earth. The likeness of His light is that of a niche in which is a lamp; the lamp is in a glass; the glass is like a shining star – it is lit by [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, which is neither of the east nor of the west. Its oil would almost glow, even without being touched by fire. Light upon light; Allah guides to His light whom He wills.} [Surat an-Nūr: 35] ’Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and others said: "The likeness of His light [is] in the heart of the believer."
Some of the righteous predecessors reportedly said that the hearts of the believers radiate to the dwellers of the heavens as the stars radiate to the dwellers of the earth.
When the love of a person and his remembrance and worship of Allah appear in some land, it is said: So-and-so has appeared in this land. As the remembrance of Allah and the mention of His names and attributes, His oneness, His verses, and worship of Him spread and fill the hearts after they were full of the darkness of disbelief and polytheism. Indeed, this belongs to His appearance which He informed about. This mostly occurs in His houses where He is worshipped, and His name is mentioned.
They said: "What could be a stronger proof and testimony than this. The books of our enemies, who disagree with our religion, and they acknowledge that, recite it in their churches, and do not deny a single word or a single letter thereof." [140] This text is not found in the printed version of Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
The response: If what they said were true - that these statements are authentically transmitted from some of the prophets - this would not contain praise for their religion after it was altered; so, what about after the abrogation and alteration? Rather, they talk about the end of the dominion of the Children of Israel and the abrogation of what was abrogated in their laws with the coming of the Messiah (peace be upon him). This proves the prophethood of the Messiah and his truthfulness, and it is something upon which the Muslims agree.
The Messiah (peace be upon him) in their religion is as Allah says about him, addressing Mary: {Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those near [to Allah]. He will speak to people in the cradle and in maturity, and he will be one of the righteous.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 45-46]
As for their statement: "This and other things exist in the books of our enemies, the Jews." [141] This text is not found in the printed version of Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
We say to them: Undoubtedly, the Jews differ from you in the interpretation of the books. You interpret them with something, and they interpret them with something else, and both interpretations may be wrong. Thus, it can be said to you: As the books of the prophets testify for the Messiah and his religion, even if the Jews contradict you in their interpretation, they, likewise, testify for Muhammad (ﷺ) and his Ummah, even if the People of the Book contradict them in their interpretation, as Allah points out the description of Muhammad and his Ummah in a number of places in the books of the prophets.
What should be done regarding the books, in case of dispute over their interpretation, is to demonstrate the truth supported with textual and rational proofs. Thereupon, it becomes clear that you interpreted the books of Allah in a way that contradicts His intent with regard to the issues of the trinity, unity, etc., as the Jews did in the interpretation of the books.
[The Twelfth Misconception: His asking of the People of the Book]
They said: "Also the statement of this person in what is contained in his book, as he adds that he was not sent to us, while he is doubtful about what he brought in this book, in Surat Saba’, as he says: {and surely either We or you are rightly guided or clearly misguided.} [Surat Saba’: 24] He also says in Surat al-Ahqāf: {nor do I know what will happen to me or to you.} [Surat al-Ahqāf: 9] [142] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 417).
The Response: Their quotation of him as saying that "he was not sent to them" is a blatant lie about him. Indeed, his book abounds with verses in which he calls them and enjoins them to believe in him and follow him, and the verses also demonstrate the universality of his message to all people, and even to both humankind and jinn. It does not state whatsoever that he was not sent to the People of the Book. On the contrary, it explicitly mentions the call to the People of the Book in a number of places, like the verse that reads: {Say: "O people of the Book, come to a common term between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and associate no partners with Him, and that we do not take one another as lords besides Allah." But if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah]."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 64]
[143] As for their statement: "while he is doubtful about what he brought." Marginal remark/ The invalidity of the Christians' claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) doubted what was revealed to him
This is a flagrant lie, as Allah Almighty says: {Say: "Call upon those whom you claim [to be gods] besides Allah. They do not have even an atom’s weight of authority in the heavens or on earth, nor do they have any share in either of them, nor is any of them a helper to Allah." No intercession will be of any benefit before Him, except for those whom He gave permission. Until when their hearts are relieved of dread, they will say [to the angels]: "What did your Lord just say?" They will say: "The Truth, and He is the Most High, Most Great." Say: "Who provides for you from the heavens and earth?" Say: "Allah! And surely either we or you are rightly guided or clearly misguided." Say: "You will not be questioned about our misdeeds, nor will we be questioned about your deeds." Say: "Our Lord will gather us together, then He will rightly judge between us, for He is the All-Knowing Judge."} [Surat Saba’: 22-26]
When He called them to monotheism and pointed out that what they called upon besides Allah do not even have an atom's weight of authority in the heavens or on earth and do not have any partner or helper, and that no intercessor can be of any avail except by His permission, He thus negated all aspects of polytheism. What is taken as a partner with Him should either possess a dominion, have a share in the dominion, or be a helper to Him. If these three do not exist, nothing remains but the intercession, which is supplication and imploring, and this cannot be of any avail to Him except for those to whom He gives permission. Thereafter, He mentions that no one gives sustenance in the heavens or on earth except Allah. By this and that, He points to monotheism, like in the verse that reads: {Whatever blessing you have, it is from Allah. Then when you are afflicted with hardship, to Him alone you cry out for help. Then as soon as He removes the hardship from you, some of you associate partners with their Lord, showing their ingratitude for what We have given them. Then enjoy yourselves now, but you will soon come to know.} [Surat an-Nahl: 53-55]
After mentioning what establishes the duty of believing in His oneness and demonstrates that the people of monotheism are the guided ones and the people of polytheism are misguided, Allah Almighty says: {and surely either We or you are rightly guided or clearly misguided.} [Surat Saba’: 24]
He says: Either of the two sides - the people of monotheism who worship none but Allah or the people of polytheism - is rightly guided or clearly misguided.
This is unbiased rhetoric. Anyone who hears it, be he an ally or an enemy, would say to those addressed: He has done justice to you. This is like when a just person whose justice is apparent says to an oppressor whose oppression is manifest: The oppressor is either me or you. There is no doubt about the apparent reality, but this is to demonstrate that one of us is clearly oppressive, and that is you, not me.
If it is said that the people of monotheism, who worship Allah, are either guided or misguided, and the people of polytheism, who worship what cannot cause harm or bring about benefit, are guided or clearly misguided, it becomes clear that the people of monotheism are guided and the people of polytheism are misguided. This is known to all adherents of religions - the Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians - knowing that the people of monotheism are guided, and the people of polytheism are in error.
This is pointed out in the Qur’an in numerous verses to be easily counted. Indeed, the core of the Qur’an and the other scriptures revolves around the worship of Allah alone. So, how can it be said that the Messenger was in doubt as to whether the guided ones are the people of monotheism or the people of polytheism? Would anyone say this except those who are extremely ignorant and stubborn?
Furthermore, the verse addresses the polytheists, not the Christians in particular.
As for Allah's statement: "Say: I do not know what will happen to me or to you," the verse exactly reads: {Say: "I am not the first of the messengers, nor do I know what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner."} [Surat al-Ahqāf: 9] This comes after the verse that reads: {Or do they say: "He has fabricated it"? Say: "If I did fabricate it, there is nothing you can do to protect me against Allah. He knows best what you gossip about it. He is Sufficient as a witness between me and you, and He is the All-Forgiving, the Most Merciful."} [Surat al-Ahqāf: 8]
On the other hand, another verse says: {Say [O Prophet]: "I do not tell you that I have the treasuries of Allah, nor do I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me."} [Surat al-An‘ām: 50]
This is what Noah, the first Messenger, said, and Muhammad, the last Messenger (ﷺ), was commanded to say.
Similar are the verses that read: {Say: "I have no power to harm or benefit you." Say: "None can ever protect me from Allah [if I should disobey Him], nor can I ever find refuge except in Him. I only convey what I receive from Allah and His messages." And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger will certainly be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein forever.} [Surat al-Jinn: 21-23]
These and similar verses contain his acknowledgment that he is a servant of Allah and a messenger from Him, who does not exceed the limit of his mission and does not claim to have a share in divinity, as claimed by the Christians regarding the Messiah. Hence, Allah Almighty says: {The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. There were messengers who passed away before him, and His mother was a woman of truth; they both ate food.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 75]
So, it became clear that he would not exceed the limit of his mission. This is similar to the verse that reads: {Muhammad is no more than a messenger; there were messengers who passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels?} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 144]
Therefore, the Prophet (ﷺ), in a Hadīth whose authenticity is agreed-upon, said: "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised Jesus, son of Mary, for I am only a slave; so, call me the slave of Allah and His Messenger." [144] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (3445).
Allah Almighty says: {Say: "I am not the first of the messengers."} He says: I am not the first to be sent or the first to proclaim the message, but other messengers came before me. {nor do I know what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner.} He says: I do not claim to know the unseen. I only follow what is revealed to me, and I am not but a warner. I warn you about what Allah commanded me to warn you about. I do not tell you that I have the treasures of Allah or know the unseen; neither do I tell you that I am an angel.
This shows his perfect truthfulness, justice, and servitude and obedience to Allah, and the distinction between what is due to the Creator alone and what is due to His servants. Knowing the outcome of matters in specific details is part of the knowledge Allah exclusively keeps to Himself. It is not known even by an angel close to Allah or a messenger sent by Him. A messenger does not necessarily know everything that will happen.
And Allah's words: {nor do I know what will happen to me or to you} negate his knowledge of everything that would happen to him and to them, for this is only known to Allah Almighty. However, this does not contradict him knowing that he would be blissful and among the dwellers of Paradise, albeit he did not know the details of the tribulations and events he would go through in this life, the new laws that would be given to him, and the kinds of bliss he would be honored with in the Hereafter. It is authentically narrated in the "Two Sahīh Collections" that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Allah Almighty says: 'I have prepared for My righteous slaves what no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard, and no human heart has ever conceived.'" [145] This is also reported from other prophets (peace be upon them). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (3244) and Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2824).
Neither is it required that a prophet know the condition of those he addresses, those who believe in him and those who disbelieve, and the details of what will ultimately happen to them. This applies if it is said: He did not know after the revelation of this verse what was negated therein. And if it is said: He was informed of that; it is well known that Allah did not inform him of everything on one occasion, rather He informed him of things in a gradual manner.
[The Thirteenth Misconception: The Prophet's invocation for guidance to the religion of the Christians]
Then, they said: (With the command to him in the opening Surah of the Book to ask for guidance to the straight path, the path of those whom Allah has blessed, not of those who incurred His wrath, or of those who went astray, by 'the blessed, the ones incurring His wrath, and the astray ones', He means the three communities existing at his time, namely the Christians, the Jews, and the idol worshipers. There was nothing other than those three communities at that time.
We are the blessed ones, the Christians. As for the ones who incurred His wrath, there is no doubt that it is the Jews who incurred Allah's wrath in the Torah, the prophets' scriptures, and in this Book. The astray ones are the idol worshipers who went astray from Allah. This is clear to everyone, especially those with good reasoning and knowledge.
The Sirāt 'path' means: the course, the way. It comes from the Roman language, "astrata". [146] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (417-418). This passage exists in the printed epistle in an abridged form.
The response:
As for their words, "We are the blessed ones, the Christians," this is a surprising statement that points to the extreme ignorance of those who said it. More surprising is their statement: "This is clear to everyone, especially those with good reasoning and knowledge." Good gracious! Did not everyone, the ordinary people and the elite ones, know as part of the necessary and indisputable knowledge in the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ) and the religion of his Ummah, which they have taken from him, that the Christians are disbelievers and described as ignorant and misguided, and that it is lawful to conduct Jihad against them, take their women captives, and seize their property, which utterly contradicts the fact that Muhammad (ﷺ) and his Ummah should be saying in every prayer: O Allah, guide us to the path of the Christians?! Would anyone claim that Muhammad (ﷺ) and his Ummah invoke Allah in every prayer to guide them to the path of the Christians, except those who are the worst and most brazen in lying and fabrication and at the peak of ignorance and misguidance?
If they were asking Allah to guide them to the path of the Christians, they would enter the religion of the Christians and would not declare them disbelievers, fight them, impose the tribute upon them which they pay willingly while they are humiliated, or testify against them that they would be among the dwellers of Hellfire.
His Ummah received all of this from him, which was conveyed from him through mass transmission and by consensus among them. They did not invent it, as the Christians invented creeds and laws not sanctioned by Allah. So, the Muslims are not to blame for following the Messenger of Allah who came with clear signs and guidance.
If Muhammad (ﷺ) was a true Messenger, then he declared the Christians as disbelievers and commanded the Muslims to conduct Jihad against them, and he disavowed them and their religion. And if he was untruthful, then nothing of what he conveyed from Allah Almighty would be accepted.
I have previously cited, more than once, the verse that reads: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 72] {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73] So, would he who says such things about the Christians command his Ummah to say in every prayer: Guide us to their path?!
Moreover, what is it in the verse that indicates that His words: {the path of those whom You have blessed} refer to the Christians? Indeed, the blessed ones are those whom Allah Almighty mentions in the verse that reads: {Those who obey Allah and the Messenger will be with those whom Allah has blessed: the prophets, the people of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous. What excellent companions they are!} [Surat an-Nisā’: 69] Those are the ones to whose path Allah commanded His servants to ask for guidance.
As for the Christians who adhered to the religion of the Messiah before the abrogation and alteration, they were among the blessed ones, just as the Jews who adhered to the religion of Moses before the abrogation and alteration were among the blessed ones.
But the Christians after the abrogation and alteration are among the misguided ones; they do not belong to those considered to be blessed in the sight of Allah and His Messenger. Allah Almighty says: {Say: "O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77] Allah Almighty also says: {How sharp they will hear and see on the Day they come to Us! But today the wrongdoers are clearly misguided.} [Surat Maryam: 38]
And the idol worshipers are among the misguided ones and those who incurred Allah's wrath. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The Jews: are people who incurred Allah's wrath, and the Christians are astray." [147] Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (19691) and At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (2954).
This is because the Jews know the truth and do not act upon it, whereas the Christians engage in worship without knowledge. Allah describes the Jews by things differing from His description of the Christians. He describes the Jews as arrogant, stingy, cowardly, callous, concealing knowledge, and following the path of misguidance, which is the way of desires and transgression.
About the Christians, on the other hand, He says:
Exaggeration and innovation in acts of worship, polytheism, misguidance, and considering things Allah declared unlawful to be lawful. Allah Almighty says: {O People of the Book do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about Allah but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say “Three” [Trinity]. Cease: that is better for you. Indeed, Allah is the only One God. Glory be to Him, [far exalted is He] to have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of Affairs. The Messiah would never disdain to be a slave of Allah, nor would the nearest angels to Him. Those who disdain to worship Him and are arrogant, He will gather them all together before Him. As for those who believe and do righteous deeds, He will give them their rewards in full and will increase them out of His bounty. But those who disdain and act arrogantly, He will subject them to a painful punishment, and they will not find for themselves any protector or helper besides Allah.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171-173]
Allah Almighty also says: {as for monasticism, they invented it – We did not prescribe it for them – seeking thereby Allah’s pleasure, yet they did not observe it faithfully.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 27] In other words: We prescribed for them the pursuit of Allah's pleasure. However, We did not prescribe monasticism for them. Rather, they invented it, and despite their invention of it, they did not observe it faithfully. Every invented thing in the religion is misguidance. So, they are dispraised for inventing monasticism and for not observing it faithfully.
Allah Almighty says about them: {and the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah." These are mere words that they utter, imitating the words of the disbelievers before them. May Allah ruin them; how can they be deluded? They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, even though they were commanded to worship only One God; none has the right to be worshiped except Him, glorified is He far above what they associate with Him.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 30-31]
And Allah Almighty addresses them, saying: {Say: "O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77]
Allah Almighty directs this speech to the Christians because they rely in their religion upon what their leading scholars say, those who laid down the laws and legislations for them. They allow their leading scholars, whom they came to regard as great figures in terms of the religion, to set new laws for them and abrogate some of the previous laws, not referring their religious disputes to Allah and His messengers, thus not enabling anyone to follow the revealed books of Allah, like the Torah and the Gospel, and from following what the Messiah and the preceding prophets came with.
Therefore, Allah Almighty says: {Say: "O People of the Book, you have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 68] Some of the religious laws and legislations that their leading scholars laid down for them were taken from the prophets and some others from the disciples; yet many of these were neither taken from the prophets nor from the disciples but were invented and set by those leading scholars.
Likewise, they invented for them Al-Amānah (the Nicene Creed) and made it the core of their faith, and they invented for them prayer towards the east and considered the consumption of pork and all other prohibitions as lawful. They also invented for them the fasting in the spring and made it 50 days. And they invented for them their festivals, like the Day of the Cross.
‘Adiyy ibn Hātim heard the Prophet (ﷺ) recite this verse: {They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 31] Thereupon, he said: They did not worship them. So, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "They made the unlawful lawful for them, and they obeyed them, and they made the lawful unlawful for them, and they obeyed them; that is their worship of them." [148] Narrated by At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3095) and Al-Bayhaqi in his "As-Sunan Al-Kubra Collection" no. (20409). See: The Series of Authentic Hadīths by Al-Albāni (7/861-866), Hadīth no. (3293).
Therefore, Allah Almighty says: {nor follow the desires of people who went astray before and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77] They follow the desires of their leading scholars who came before them. Those people went astray before these ones, and they misled their followers, who are too many, and they themselves strayed from the straight path, the middle way.
If they and their followers strayed from the straight path, how would it be possible that Allah commands His servants to ask Him to guide them to the straight path, and by it He means the path of those astray people who misled others from the right way, i.e., the straight path? And Allah Almighty says: {nor follow the desires} of those. This is because the root cause of their invention was their vain desires, along with wrong thinking. So, they became among those about whom Allah Almighty says: {They follow nothing but conjecture and what their souls desire, although there has come to them guidance from their Lord.} [Surat an-Najm: 23] And among those about whom Allah Almighty says: {Who is more astray than one who follows his desire without any guidance from Allah?} [Surat al-Qasas: 50]
At the root cause of this is the fact that after the Messiah was raised to heaven, and the Jews showed extreme animosity towards him and his followers
and they went to extremes in harming them, humiliating them, and seeking to kill and banish them, this generated severe hatred in their hearts towards the Jews and a desire to take revenge from them. So, when they had a state and power, like the empire of Constantine, they wanted to fight the Jews. This is what would usually happen under such circumstances between warring factions locked in dispute over authority or religious innovations, such as the Kharijites with the Rafidites, the Jabriyyah (compulsionists) with the Qadariyyah (negators of destiny), and the Mu‘attilah (negators) with the Mumaththilah (those who liken God with creation), and such as two states in conflict over power and interests, like the Qays–Yaman rivalry. When one of the two sides overpowered the other, after previously suffering harm and revenge at their hands, they would seek revenge, and in doing so, they would not stop at the limit of justice; rather, they would transgress against them just as they transgressed against them before.
As a consequence, the Christians became keen on contradicting the Jews. They regarded the things prohibited by the Jews as lawful, like pigs and other things, and began to test those entering their religion by the eating of pork. Whoever ate it, they would accept him; otherwise, they would not accept him as a Christian. Also, they abandoned circumcision, saying that baptism suffices instead, and prayed towards a direction other than that of the Jews.
The Jews went too far in dispraising the Messiah (peace be upon him) and alleged that he was an illegitimate child, a liar, and a magician. On the other hand, the Christians went to extremes in extolling the Messiah. They said he is Allah, the son of Allah, and so on. If anyone seeks to say the truth regarding him, like so many of their scholars and monks, they hold a council meeting for this purpose and curse him by way of fanaticism, the pursuit of their vain inclinations, and their immoderate reverence for the Messiah. This typically happens among the people who follow their personal inclinations, like those who go to extremes in revering some Shaykhs, some members of the Prophet's household, some scholars, some kings, some tribes, some doctrines, or some religious orders. The root of their misguidance is their personal inclination. Allah Almighty says to the Christians who lived during the Prophet's (ﷺ) time and those who came after them: {O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77]
As for their statement: The Sirāt is the course, i.e., the way. This is a Roman word because the way in Roman is "Istrāta".
We say to them:
The "Sirāt" in Arabic is the path. It is said to mean: the clear path. It is also said to mean: the path bounded by two sides from which it does not depart. An example is the Sirāt erected above Hellfire. This is the bridge over which the believers will pass to Paradise. But when the disbelievers pass over it, they will fall into Hellfire.
It is also said to mean levelness and straightness that allows for quick passing.
It has three variations according to three Arabic dialects: the Ssirāt, the Sirāt, and the Zirāt. This is part of the original Arabic language. It is neither arabized nor taken from the Roman language, as they alleged.
[Chapter Three: The Christians' Claim That the Missions of Prophets Denote the Doctrine of Trinity and Unity]
The one reporting their speech said: (I said: they disapprove of our statement concerning Father, Son and Holy spirit.
Also, our statement that they are three hypostases,
and our statement that Christ is a lord, god and a creator.
They further demand from us to clarify the personification of the word of Allah, the Creator, in the form of a created human being.
They answered by saying: If they knew that these statements were meant to prove that Allah is a living speaking being, they would not disapprove of such statements. That is because when we, the Christians, noticed that things come into existence, we realized that there is another being that causes them to exist, since they cannot exist on their own, given their contradiction and fluctuation. So, we said that He is a being unlike the created beings; rather, He is the creator of all things. We said so in order to negate His nonexistence.
We also noticed that created beings fall under two categories: living beings and non-living beings. So, we attributed to Him the most sublime of the two qualities and described Him as a living being in order to negate death from Him. We further noticed that living beings may be speaking beings or non-speaking beings. We attributed to Him the best of the two qualities and said that He is a living speaking being in order to negate ignorance from Him.
The Three Names that are: One God, One Name, One Lord, One Creator, a Living Speaking Being: i.e., the Essence, Speech and Life. We perceive the Essence: as the Father who is the beginning of the two; the Speech: as the Son who is generated from Him like speech generates from the mind; and the Life: as the Holy Spirit. ([1]). Epistle of Paul of Antioch (p.418).
The reply is based on the following points:
[2] The first point: their statement: "As for our statement regarding Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if they knew that these statements were meant to prove that Allah is a living speaking being, they would not disapprove such statements." Side comment: The Christians' proof regarding trinity is based on narratives, not reason.
We say: The matter is not as they claim, for the Christians say that they learnt this statement from the Gospel, and that it is mentioned in the Gospel that Christ (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." ([3]) This indicates that their statements are originally derived from the revealed law, as they have mentioned, not that they established the attributes of Life and Speech through reason, then expressed them by these statements as they claimed in their debate. See: Gospel of Matthew (19:28).
If the matter is as they said, then they are in no need to say such a statement or make the hypostases three in number. Rather, it is known to them, and to all people of other faiths that Allah is Existent, Living, Knowing, Omnipotent and Speaking. His attributes are not limited to three, and it is not valid to express three of His attributes by a statement that is not indicative of them, namely, the terms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In fact, these terms do not reflect the meaning they gave to them in any of the languages spoken by any nation. It is not found in the words of any of the prophets that he used such terms to refer to the meanings they mentioned. Rather, the proof of the concept of the trinity and expressing it through such words is something that they invented, it is not supported by any proof from divine law or reason.
They claim that the Trinity, Incarnation and Unity are facts that they came to know through divine law, namely the statements of the prophets and the revealed books, not through reason. They alleged that they were explicitly mentioned in the divine books. Then they tried hard to come up with a logical approach to interpret what they believed to be the meaning of the revealed books in a way that they thought to be acceptable according to reason.
That is the reason why the Christians always resort to their law and divine books to prove the doctrines of trinity, incarnation and unity, as they find their minds and hearts alienated from believing in these doctrines. This is because the sound natural disposition with which Allah created mankind, along with what Allah has placed in the hearts of people of intellectual knowledge that they may call a natural law, reject such claims, negate them and make them unacceptable to reason. However, they claim that these doctrines are mentioned in the divine books, and that perceiving them is beyond the ability of the mind. They transmit them due to their belief that the divine books informed about them, not because they are inferred through reason. But, in fact, there is nothing in the divine books indicating that; rather, they include evidence contradicting it. Furthermore, they do not distinguish between what the mind perceives as impossible, invalid and unfathomable, and what the mind is unable to grasp, and cannot negate or affirm. It is the second category that the Messengers informed about, yet giving information about the second category is not allowable for them. Thus, they made no distinction between what reason judges as impossible and what it is unable to perceive in the first place. In doing so, they followed the same path as the polytheists who preceded them in claiming a son and partner for Him.
Allah Almighty says: {The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah" and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?} [Surat At-Tawbah: 30]
The basic proof of the Christians was what they transmitted either from the prophets or from others whose following they considered mandatory. When they presented to their scholars something that entailed the invalidity of such claims, they would say: "That is what is reported and written in the books, and these books were brought by the messengers," meaning those supported with miracles, and they meant by the messengers, the disciples of Christ. So, their adherence to them is based on what they thought was mentioned in the divine books, even if they found it contradictory to explicit reasonable deduction.
That is why they forbid their audience from researching and debating about that topic, for they know that if sound minds were to think about their religion, they will know that it is invalid.
Therefore, the claim of those who say: "Our statement about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is meant to prove that Allah is Living and Speaking," is but an evident lie, and they know it is a lie. In fact, to prove that Allah is Living and Speaking does not depend upon such a statement, but it could be proved by Shariah-approved textual and rational evidence. This must also be expressed through clear explicit statements like those said by the Muslims and others, without saying: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
[4] The Second Point: The Christians who admit that this phrase is mentioned in the Gospel attributed to Christ differ in the interpretation of this statement, as many of them say: The Father is: the Existence. And the Son is: the Word. And the Holy Spirit is: the Life. Side comment: The Christians' difference about the meanings of trinity
Others say: The Father is: the Existence, the Son is: the Word, and the Holy Spirit is: the Power.
There are others who refer to the Word as Knowledge, so they say: He is Existent, Living and Knowing, or: He is Existent, Knowing and Capable. Others further say: Speaking. While some of them say: He is Existent, Living and Wise, others say: He is Self-Subsisting, Living and Wise. They all agree, however, that the entity that is united with Christ or incarnates in him is the hypostasis of the Word, and that is what they call the Son, not the Father.
The deniers of the doctrine of incarnation and unity, like the Arians, who say that Christ (peace be upon him) is a slave of Allah whom He sent as a messenger, like all the other messengers of Allah (peace be upon him), have agreed with them regarding the statement of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit, but they do not explain such a statement through the doctrine of unity and incarnation as claimed by their foes.
The Nestorians also agree with them regarding this statement, yet they dispute with them regarding the doctrine of unity that the Jacobites and the Malakites adopt. Hence, given the fact that they are in agreement regarding the statement, and in dispute over its meaning, it is known that they initially believed in the statement, due to their belief that it is preached by the revealed law, then they disputed afterwards over the explanation of the Book, just as they and the rest of people of other faiths differ in the interpretation of some of the words that they believe were transmitted from the prophets (peace be upon them). It is also known, based upon this, that their statement: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit was not originally intended for proving that Allah is Existent, Living and Speaking, which they had primarily known through reason.
[5] The Third Point: Their statement: "When we saw the things coming into existence, we realized that there is an entity that caused them to exist." Side comment / The falsity of the claim that the Trinity is proven by rational inference
If this statement belongs to a certain sect among the Christians, then the answer to them is: "The doctrine of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit had been advocated by the Christians before your existence, your study and your inference. It is not logical, therefore, to claim that this doctrine is part of your study and research. But if it is claimed that all the Christians who held such a statement had conducted much study and rational inference until they reached that conclusion, then this is an evident lie, for in fact, the Christians say that they learnt it from the Gospel, and that Christ said: "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." ([6]). See: The Gospel of Matthew (19:28).
Neither Christ nor the disciples commanded them to conduct such a study that entails this statement, nor did Christ make that statement contingent upon this research. So, their claim that this statement is the product of research is invalid, which is known to them.
[7] The Fourth Point: If Christ did not say such a statement, then it must not be advocated even if it reflects a valid meaning, for it is a statement that implies invalid meanings when used in a general context. That is why there are a lot of Christians who believe that Christ is the son of Allah in the sense that it is commonly known by the created beings. They say that Maryam is the wife of Allah, which is a natural conclusion that Christians in general believe in, even though they do not utter it, for it is a must for the one who begets to have a wife. For that reason, Allah Almighty says: {How could He have a son when He never had a companion? He created all things, and He is All-Knowing of everything.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 101] Marginal comment / Invalidity of the Trinity because Christ did not preach it
[8] The Fifth Point: If this statement is authentically attributed to the infallible Christ, then he meant thereby what was consistent with the rest of his speech, and it is found in their books that the Lord is referred to as Father, and His servants as Sons, as they mention that He said in the Torah to Jacob: (You are my first-born son) ([9]), and He said to David in the Psalms: (You are my son and my beloved) ([10]), and in The Gospel, Christ frequently refers to Him as (My Father) and (your Father), like when he said: (I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God)([11]). He calls Him their father, just as he calls them his sons. Marginal comment / Correct explanation of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit See: Exodus (22:4). It is mentioned in the Book of Psalms (7:2): “I declared the judgment of the Lord, and He said to me: You are my son, today I have begotten you.” See: The Gospel of John (17:20).
If we assume the authenticity of these statements, then they are intended to indicate that He is the Merciful Lord Who raises them. In fact, Allah is more merciful to His servants than a mother to her child, and the Son, is the one raised and shown mercy by the Lord, and Allah raises His servant in a manner that is more perfect than that of the mother. So, the Father here means the Lord, and the Son is the Christ, His servant that He raised.
As for the Holy Spirit, it is a term that occurs frequently in their books and it does not mean the Life of Allah, as agreed upon among them. Rather, they believe that the Holy spirit may indwell in Ibrāhīm, Mūsa, Dāwūd, and other righteous prophets.
The Qur’an testifies that Allah Almighty supported Christ by the Holy Spirit, as Allah Almighty says: {We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.} which occurred twice in Surat al-Baqarah, and He also says: {“O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110] The Prophet (ﷺ) further said to Hassān ibn Thābit: "The Holy Spirit is with you so long as you are defending His Prophet." ([12]) He also said: "O Allah! Strengthen him by the Holy Spirit.") ([13]) Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection", No. (7146). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his Sahīh Collection, No (3212) and Muslim in his Sahīh Collection, No. (2485).
The Holy Spirit may refer to the sacred angel, like Jibrīl, or the revelation, guidance and support that Allah sends down through that angel or without him. The two meanings may overlap as well since the angel descends with revelation, and revelation is sent down by the angel. Allah Almighty strengthens His messengers with the angels and guidance. So, if [the Messiah] said: "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," ([14]) then he meant to say: command the people to believe in Allah, His Prophet that He sent, and the angel that descended upon him with the revelation that he came with. Thus, such a statement is a command for them to believe in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. This is the truth that is indicated by clear reason and authentic textual proofs. See: The Gospel of Matthew (19: 28).
In fact, explaining the speech of the infallible prophet in such a way that conforms to all the statements reported in their books, and agrees with the Qur’an and reason is more appropriate than explaining it with what goes against clear reason and sound textual reports.
Besides, it is an explicit explanation that involves no sophistication, and is not a form of Ta’wīl which is to interpret the speech contrary to its apparent indication. Rather, it is an explanation that is based upon its apparent implications conveyed by the known language and familiar statements of the speech of the Messiah and all the prophets.
As for the Christians' explanation of the Son as a born entity that has no beginning, and that he is the knowledge or the Word of Allah, this is an explanation of the Word by a meaning that was never used to in the speech of any of the prophets, or in any of their languages.
The same also goes for explaining the Holy Spirit as the Life of Allah, since the meaning by which the Christians interpreted the words of the Messiah is something that is not in accordance with the language of the Messiah or his habitual manner of speaking, or the language of any other prophet or nation. Rather, what is known from his language, speech, as well as the speech of all the prophets is that it was interpreted in the same way we interpreted it, which was also the interpretation provided by major Christian scholars.
The misguided Christians who distorted the meanings of Allah Almighty's Books also interpreted the speech in a way that disagrees with its apparent meaning and is disapproved by reason and the revealed law.
[15] The Sixth Point: We say: Definitely, Allah is Living, Knowing, Powerful and Speaking. Muslims have rational proofs on this fact to which the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) guided them, so it became known to them through reason and established by the revealed law. Nonetheless, you claim that you prove this fact by reason, yet you did not mention any rational proof to support it, and your statement: "When we noticed that things come into existence, we realized that there is another being that causes them to exist, since they cannot exist on their own given their contradiction and change," is pointless due to some reasons: Marginal remark/ Deficiency and inconsistency of the Christians' inference regarding Allah's attributes
First: You did not see all the creatures' coming into existence; you only saw what is commonly witnessed such as clouds, rain, animals, plants and the like. So, where is your evidence on the occurrence of all other things?
Second: You should have said: "When we came to realize the occurrence of things, or the creatures coming into existence, or the occurrence of whatever is other than Allah," or any other statement that clearly indicates that occurrence applies to all that is other than Allah. But, to generalize the speech about the occurrence of things is invalid since Allah is known to you and to the majority of Muslims as one of the things, which is contradictory to Allah Almighty's saying: {Allah is the Creator of all things.} [Surat ar-Ra‘d: 16] So, this structure of the statements manifests that the Creator is not the same as the created beings, contrary to the statement of those who say: the occurrence of things.
Third: To know that for each occurrence of things there must be someone who causes it to occur, which is essential instinctive knowledge, and that is why Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an: {Were they created by none, or were they the creators [of themselves]?} [Surat At-Tūr: 35] Jubayr ibn Mut‘im said: "When I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) reciting it in Maghrib Prayer, I felt my heart was split asunder." ([16]) Allah Almighty says: were they created without a creator to create them, or were they creators of themselves? Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection", no. (4854).
Your statement: "they cannot exist on their own, given their contradiction and fluctuation," is an invalid justification. In fact, our knowledge that they cannot exist on their own is not based on their contradiction and fluctuation, for regardless of their being of a similar, different or contradicting nature, we know by clear reason that a created being cannot create itself, which is one of the most evident and manifest aspects of knowledge to the mind. It is further known that a nonexistent cannot create what is existent, and that the creator of the existent created beings cannot be nonexistent.
Fourth: You provided an argument that they did not create themselves, which is a weak argument, yet you did not mention an argument for the impossibility that they were created without a creator, neither themselves nor others. If the impossibility of the assumption that they created themselves requires evidence, then the same applies to the impossibility of their occurrence without a creator. If it is something that is known by innate reason and is part of essential knowledge, then the same applies to the other assumption as well. Actually, to provide evidence for one of them apart from the other is wrong, even if the evidence you provided is valid, so what if the evidence is invalid?
When people who have such an insignificant share of knowledge of rational evidence by which they prove their knowledge of the Creator, then they seek to establish rational meanings which they claim are in conformity to their invalid understanding of the divine Books, then they are those about whom Allah said: {As for those who disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage in a plain desert, which a thirsty person deems to be water, until when he reaches it, he finds nothing, but he finds Allah there [in the Hereafter], thus He will pay him his account in full, for Allah is swift in reckoning. Or [their deeds] are like layers of darkness in a deep sea covered by waves upon waves, above which are clouds - layers of darkness, one above another. If one stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it. Whoever Allah does not give light will have no light at all.} [Surat an-Nūr: 39-40]
[17] The Seventh Point: You say: "We said that He is a being not like the created beings, rather, He is the creator of all things; we said so in order to negate His nonexistence]." Marginal remark/ There is no rational argument to prove the divine attributes in the statements of the Christians.
The reply is: There is no doubt that Allah is as He described Himself in His saying: {There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 11] And His saying: {So, worship Him and be constant in worshiping Him. Do you know anyone equal to Him?”} [Surat Maryam: 65] Meaning: Is there anyone equal to Him that can be called by His names. And also, His saying: {Say: He is Allah, the One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is He begotten, and there is none comparable to Him.”} [Surat al-Ikhlās: 1-4]
This is what is indicated by reason; for when there are two equals that can replace each other, what is due for one of them is necessarily due to the other, what is impossible for one is necessarily impossible for the other, and what is possible for one is necessarily possible for the other. So, if there is an equal for the Creator, then it is a must that they share what is due, possible and impossible.
Existence and eternity are due for the Creator, and nonexistence is impossible for Him, which entails that the created being must be ever-existent, has no beginning or end and was never non-existent. But for him to be created and has a beginning, necessarily means that he is existent, non-existent, has no beginning and has a beginning, which is a combination of opposites that is impossible according to intuitive reason.
In addition; a created being can never be pre-existent without a beginning, as it must have been previously non-existent. So, were the pre-existent Creator to share the same qualities as the created being, the have-to-be pre-existent Creator must have been existent after having been nonexistent, which is also a combination of two opposites. Thus, clear reason decisively proves that there is nothing like unto Allah.
But you do not mention any proof for that; rather, you said: "He is something not like the created things, for He is the creator of all things." You did not provide a proof that He is the Creator of all things, for you relied mainly on the occurrences of the things that you witnessed, which are not all the things. You also failed to provide a proof that there is nothing like unto Him, even though He is the Creator of all things, but you said: "That is because when, we, the Christians, noticed that things come into existence, we realized that there is another being that causes them to exist, since they cannot exist on their own, given their contradiction and fluctuation. So, we said that He is a being unlike the created beings; rather, He is the creator of all things. We said that to negate His nonexistence." If your proof indicates knowledge of the Originator, it only indicates that He is a Creator, so what is the case if it does not indicate it in the first place?
There is no doubt that the Exalted Creator must be existent and must never be non-existent. This is an indisputably established fact for which the wise and rational people need no evidence, even though some of them proved His existence by theoretical evidence, yet your evidence lacks any indication that He is not like the created beings.
Your statement: "He is the Creator of all things" implies that He is the Creator of all that is other than Him, but it does not negate His likeness to any other thing. You only showed through these words your ignorance of rational proofs, just as your ignorance of the revealed Books. Allah Almighty informed us that the people of the Fire will say: {“If only we had listened or understood, we would not be among the dwellers of the Blazing Fire.”} [Surat al-Mulk: 10]
As for your statement: "We also noticed that created beings fall under two categories: living beings and non-living beings. So, we attributed to Him the most sublime of the two qualities and described Him as a living being in order to negate death from Him."
We say: There is no doubt that Allah is Ever-Living as stated in His revealed Books that are His verbal signs, and as further indicated by His other signs like His creation which is His action-related signs. Allah Almighty says: {We will show them Our signs in the universe and in their own selves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth.} [Surat Fussilat: 53] Meaning: that this Qur’an is the truth, as it was mentioned in the verse preceding this one: {Say, “Did you ever consider, if this [Qur’an] is really from Allah, but you reject it, who can be more astray than someone who is in extreme defiance?”} [Surat Fussilat: 52] Indeed, Allah Almighty shows to His slaves through His visible signs manifested in His actions what proves the truthfulness of His revealed verses.
Allah Almighty says: {Allah: none has the right to be worshiped except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.} [Surat Āl-‘Imrān: 2] Allah Almighty also says: {Put your trust in the Ever-Living Who never dies} [Surat al-Furqān: 58] There is a lot of evidence that He is Ever-Living, which is an attribute of perfection which He deserves by His Essence, and it is opposite to death. He is not described as the Ever-Living in order to negate His death, rather this description entails the negation of death, so death is negated from Him because He is Ever-Living, not that we establish Life for Him in order to negate death. Likewise, to affirm His existence entails negation of His nonexistence, but it is not that we affirm His existence to negate nonexistence from Him. Rather, His nonexistence is negated due to His existence, just as death is negated from Him due to His Life.
They say: "The Three Names that are: One God, One Lord, One Creator, One Name, a Living Speaking Being: i.e., the Essence, Speech and Life. We perceive the Essence: as the Father who is the beginning of the two; the Speech: as the Son who is generated from Him like speech generates from the mind, and the Life: as the Holy Spirit."
The reply to this is based on various aspects:
[18] The First Aspect: The names of Allah, the Blessed and Almighty, are multiple and numerous, so limiting them to only three names apart from the others is invalid, and whatever claims made by them that these three names are especially specific to Him apart from the others are invalid as well. Marginal remark/ Invalidity of limiting His names to three only
[19] The Second Aspect: Their statement: "the Father who is the beginning of the two; the Speech: as the Son who is generated from Him like speech generates from the mind," is invalid speech, for in fact, the attributions of perfections are necessarily inseparable from the Essence of the Exalted Lord first and foremost. He is and has always been Living, Knowing and Powerful. He never became Living after having been non-Living, nor did He become Knowing after having been unknowing. Marginal remark/ Invalidity of speech being generated from Him as well as its invalid necessary consequences
If they say: "The Father, who is the Essence, is the beginning of Life and Speech," then this entails that Allah was there before Life and Speech, and that He is the Originator of Life and Speech. This is because being the beginning of something means being precedent to it or a maker of it, something that is invalid to be said about Allah.
Also, their statement: "Speech is generated from Him just like speech is generated from the mind," in fact, when something is generated from another, this means that it comes into existence after being nonexistent, just as speech occurs eventually, whether they mean by Speech knowledge or expression, for they both were not essential qualities of the speaking self, rather they occurred to it and became one of its attributes after they were nonexistent. And if it had the ability and power to speak, then if they liken the generation of speech from the Lord to its generation from the mind, this necessarily means that the Lord was speaking by His power, then He became speaking by His action. This necessarily means that He became knowledgeable after He had not been. This is one of the gravest forms of disbelief and it is totally beyond rationality, for there is nothing other than Himself that can make Him acquire the attributes of perfection after lacking them. As everything other than Himself is part of His creation and any aspect of perfection may exist in the creation is actually stemming from His perfection. Thus, it is impossible that it causes the Lord, the Exalted and Almighty, to be perfect.
This represents the idea of an illogical cycle according to clear reason, because, for something to cause another to be described with the attributes of perfection, it must have them in the first place. If it was lacking such attributes until another caused it to have them, then this leads to the illogical cycle where there are two things, each of them is the maker and cause of the other, or of some of its conditioned attributes. So, this demonstrates the invalidity of the claim that His speech is generated from Him like it generates from the mind, and also the invalidity of the idea that His attributes that are inseparable from His essence were originated by an entity that existed before them or caused them.
[20] The Third Point: Their statement about the Son: "that he is generated from Allah" if they meant by this: Marginal remark/ Invalid implications of saying that the Son is generated from Allah as claimed by the Christians.
That he is an inseparable attribute of Him, then Life is an inseparable attribute of Allah too, which means that the Holy Spirit is a second Son.
But if they mean that the Son came from the Father after being nonexistent, then he must have become knowledgeable after He had not been, which is invalid and is considered disbelief. Besides, this should necessarily apply to Life, i.e., that Allah became a Living being after He had not been so.
[21] The Fourth Point: Referring to the Life of Allah as the "Holy Spirit" is not mentioned in any of the revealed books. Thus, it is from their distortion and alteration. Marginal remark/ Referring to the Life of Allah as the "Holy Spirit" is not supported by evidence.
[22] The Fifth Point: They claim that the entity unified with Christ is the Word, meaning the knowledge. If by this they are referring to the knowing, speaking entity, then Christ is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is invalid and is regarded as disbelief according to them as well as to all other people. Marginal remark/ Invalidity of Christ's unity with the Word
If they say that the thing unified with him is knowledge, then as knowledge is an inseparable attribute of the knower and inseparable of the other attribute, which is Life, then knowledge cannot be unified with him without the essence and without the life.
[23] The Sixth Point: Knowledge is also an attribute, and attributes do not create or give sustenance. In addition, the Messiah himself is not a dependent attribute as agreed upon by wise people. Also, the Messiah, in the sight of Christians is the creator of the heavens and earth. So, the entity unified with Him cannot be an attribute, for the worshiped god is the Living Knowing Powerful God. He is not life, knowledge or speech. Marginal remark/ Impossibility of the claim that the entity united with him is an attribute
If someone says: "O Life of Allah", "O Knowledge of Allah", or "O Speech of Allah! Forgive me, have mercy on me and guide me;" that would be invalid according to clear reason. That is why no religion had ever considered it valid to say to the Torah, the Gospel or to any other revealed speech of Allah: "Forgive me" or "Have mercy on me." But these words are to be said to God Who has spoken these words.
The Messiah (peace be upon him), according to you is the Creator God to whom it is said: " Forgive us and have mercy on us." If he were the knowledge and word of Allah, then it is illogical that he is a worshiped God. So, what is the case when he is not the Knowledge and Word of Allah? Instead, he is created by Allah's words when He said to him: "Be," and he was.
This demonstrates that the words of Allah are numerous and endless. It is mentioned in divine books like the Torah that He created things by His words. It is reported in the first revealed parts of the Torah that He said: "Let such-and-such be, let such-and-such be." ([24]). See: Book of Genesis (6-1:1).
It is known that the Messiah is not many words, but, by far, he is only one word of Allah, for he was created by one word of the words of Allah Almighty.
[25] The Seventh Aspect: The Nicene Creed was set by your bishops in the presence of Constantine, which represents your belief that you made the foundation of your religion on. It contradicts your claim that God is one, and shows that what you say to those who debate with you is contrary to what you believe in. Marginal remark/ The Christians' claim that God is one goes against the Nicene Creed, which is one of their authentic sources.
These are the two well-known matters in your religion:
Your contradiction,
and your stating in debates what is contradictory to the principles of your religions that you believe in.
In fact, the Nicene Creed [26], agreed upon by the masses of Christians, states: This creed or law of faith was approved by the Council of Nicaea in (325 AD). They also set the principles related to the Holy Spirit as defined in the Nicene Creed in the Council of Constantinople in (381 AD). See: Tārīkh Ibn al-Batrīq (p. 127) and also: Qānun Al-Iman Aqeedah Wa Hayat, by Gerges ‘Abdul-Masīh (p. 9).
"We believe in one God, the Father, [the] Controller of everything, Creator of the heaven and earth; all what is visible and invisible."
And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all the worlds, Light from Light, true God from true God, from the Essence of his Father, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made; who came down from heaven for our sake and for our salvation, and was incarnated from the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary, and was made as human; he was crucified, suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sat on the right side of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the dead and those who are; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who is generated from the Father, who is with the Father and the Son, worshiped and glorified, and who is a speaker among the prophets.
And in a universal and apostolic [Church] ([27]). It is "a church" according to the verified version (2/221), and the correction is made according to the text of the Law of Faith. See: Pope Athanasius the Apostolic, by Mina Badī‘ (p. 35) and Orthodoxy Is a Creed for All Ages, by Father Anthony M. Konyars (p. 26).
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
We hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." In the verified original text (2/221): "And a son came for the resurrection of the dead" - and the correction from the verification of the first part (p. 173), which is consistent with the code of faith, as mentioned in the references of the previous annotation: "And we wait for the resurrection of the dead."
In this creed that you made the foundation of your religion, it is mentioned that you believe in three things:
"We believe in one God, the Creator of the heaven and earth, and the Creator of all visible and invisible things." This is the Lord of the worlds, other than Whom there is no god or lord. He is the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the rest of the prophets and messengers, and the god to whose worship alone all the messengers called people, who has no partner, and forbade them from worshiping other than Him. Allah Almighty says: {“We never sent before you [O Prophet] any messenger without revealing to him that none has the right to be worshiped except Me, so worship Me.”} [Surat Al-Anbiyā’: 25] Allah Almighty also says: {Ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before you: Did We appoint gods to be worshiped besides the Most Compassionate?} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 45]
Then you said: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God before all times, Light from Light, true God from true God, from the Essence of his Father."
And you said: "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father."
Thus, you explicitly stated that you believe in a created Lord, the Only Son of God, equal to the Father, along with your belief in the Creator of the heavens and earth, and you said: "He is true God from true God, from the Essence of his Father." This is an explicit confession of your belief in two gods; one of whom is begotten from the other.
God's knowledge, his speech or wisdom of Allah that you called as the Son of god, are inseparable attributes of His essence. None of the other messengers had ever called an [attribute] of god as His Son. Then, the Son is not true God from true God, but there is only one God, and this is His attribute, which is not a god, just as the attributes of His power, hearing, seeing and all His other attributes are not gods. That is also because God is only one, yet His attributes are numerous. Besides, God is an independent essence that is described with such attributes, while the attribute is dependent on the described entity. You also called God an essence and said that He is an independent self-existent entity, whereas an attribute is not an independent self-existent entity.
So, according to this creed, they considered Allah as:
A Father who is the begetter,
and a son who is begotten.
They made the Son equal to Him in essence, as they said: "Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." They explicitly state that he is equal to Him in essence, while the one equal is not the one to whom he is equal.
Nothing can be equal to the Father in essence except another essence. So, the Son had to be a second essence, and the Holy Spirit a third one. This is an explicit statement that there are three essences, or three gods, whereas Allah has exalted Himself above these three.
However, they say: "We only affirm that there is only one essence and one god." This statement combines two opposites, and this is what they actually believe in. They combine believing in three gods and affirming that gods are one entity, and affirming that there is one essence and three essences, whereas Allah exalted Himself is above that, saying: {Say: He is Allah, the One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is He begotten, and there is none comparable to Him.”} [Surat Al-Ikhlās: 1-4] Allah has exalted Himself above begetting, and being begotten, while they say that He is the Father, and they say that He is the Son. And Allah is also above having anyone comparable to Him, whereas they say that there is another one who is equal to Him in essence.
If you say: "We say that [He is one essence with three attributes]."
We say: You have stated that He is the true God from the true God that equals Him in essence. In this way, you affirm the existence of another essence, not another attribute. So, you have combined the two statements: affirming the existence of three essences and claiming that you affirm the existence of one essence.
You will not be saved from this by the excuses made by some of you, such as Yahya ibn ‘Adiyy [29] and others who said: This is like saying: Zayd, the physician, the accountant, and the writer; and then saying: Zayd, the physician; Zayd, the accountant; and Zayd, the writer. With each of those attributes, he is viewed differently from the other attributes. They may interpret the hypostasis by this, saying: The hypostasis is the essence along with the attribute. The essence with each attribute is a hypostasis. So, there became three hypostases. This example is not consistent with your view, for Zayd has one essence and three attributes: medicine, accounting, and writing. There are not three essences here; rather, each attribute is treated differently from the others. A Christian Jacobite philosopher became the leading figure in the field of logic and the sciences of religious rulings. He died in 364 H. See: Akhbār Al-‘Ulamā' by Al-Qafti (p. 270) and ‘Uyūn Al-Anbā’ Fi Tabaqāt Al-Atibbā’ (p. 317).
No rational person would say that an attribute is equal to the person possessing it in terms of the essence, neither is the essence with this attribute equal to the essence with another attribute. This is because the essence is one, and the attributes are different. This is also because the essence along with the attribute constitutes the Father. If it was that who is united with the Messiah, then the one united with him was the Father; and because you said the following: "He is a true god from a true God, from the essence of his Father, who is equal to the Father in terms of the essence: He came down and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and from Virgin Mary; and he took a human form, was crucified, and suffered pain." As a consequence, the true god who is equal to the Father in the essence was crucified and suffered pain, which means that the divine being was crucified while in pain. This is acknowledged by some denominations among you and denied by others. But your Nicene Creed entails its acknowledgement.
Also, in case he was incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary, if the Holy Spirit is the life of Allah, as you alleged, then the Messiah is the word of Allah and His life; thus, his divine nature will represent two of the three hypostases, whereas you regard him as only one hypostasis. And if the Holy Spirit is not the life of Allah, this nullifies your interpretation of the Holy Spirit as the life of Allah, and it will be said to you: The Holy Spirit should not be an attribute of Allah or a hypostasis.
Moreover, you mention in your Nicene Creed that you believe in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, thus affirming the existence of a third lord. You said: He emanated from the Father. Emanating is like gushing forth, flowing, pouring, and so on. This entails that the life-giving Lord gushed forth from the Father and flowed out of Him.
You also said: "He, along with the Father, is prostrated to and is magnified, and he speaks in the prophets." Thus, you made him, along with the Father, prostrated to, thus affirming the existence of a third god to whom others prostrate.
It is well known that the life of Allah, which is His attribute, did not emanate from Him; rather, it exists in Him and does not depart from Him whatsoever. It is an inseparable attribute of Him and is related to none other than Him. Knowledge is related to the information, ability is related to things to be done, and addressing is related to the addressees, unlike speaking, which is an inseparable attribute. We say: Allah knows such and such; Allah has power over all things; Allah addressed Moses.
As for life, it is the word denoting that it is inseparable and unrelated to the non-living. We say: He is alive; he lives life. But we do not say: He lives such and such or by such and such. Rather, we say: He gives life to such and such. Giving life differs from being alive, just as education differs from knowledge, granting ability differs from ability, and addressing differs from speaking.
Then, you made this Holy Spirit speak in the prophets (peace be upon them), whereas the life of Allah is an attribute that exists in Him and does not indwell in anyone else. So, the Holy Spirit that exists in the prophets and the righteous is not the life of Allah that exists in Him. If the Holy Spirit that exists in the prophets was one of the three hypostases, each of the prophets would thus be a worshiped god, whose human nature united with the divine one, like the Messiah according to you; when one of the hypostases united with the Messiah, he became both human and divine. If the Holy Spirit, which is one of the three hypostases, spoke in the prophets, each of them would be both human and divine like the Messiah, whereas you do not acknowledge indwelling and unity except in the case of the Messiah, though you established for other prophets the same as you established for him.
They sometimes liken the two hypostases - knowledge and life, which they call "the word" and the Holy Spirit" - to the light and heat of the sun next to the sun. They liken that to the life and speaking of a self next to that self. This comparison is wrong. By the light and heat, they mean something that exists in the essence of the sun, which is an inseparable attribute of it and did not indwell or unite with anything else. This also holds true for the attribute of the self. The objective here is to demonstrate the error of their speech and their analogies.
If they mean something separate from the sun, like the rays that exist in the air and on the earth as well as the heat that resides therein, this will be evidence for the error of their view from a number of aspects:
First: That these are symptoms that are separate from the sun, and they exist in other things, not in it. This is similar to what resides in the prophets' hearts, like the knowledge, wisdom, and the revelation with which they were warned. Accordingly, human nature contains no divinity, but only the effects of its wisdom and ability.
Second: That the heat and light that exist in the air and on the walls are symptoms that reside outside the sun, whereas "the word" and "the Holy Spirit", in their belief, are two essences.
Third: That this is not the sun or one of its attributes; rather, it is an effect that happens outside the sun because of the sun. The like of this admittedly happens in the prophets and the righteous. It is not something that exclusively applies to the Messiah (peace be upon him). Indeed, what indwelled in the Messiah also indwelled in the other messengers, and what did not indwell in other messengers did not indwell in him. So, nothing exclusively applies to him that entails him being a god, to the exclusion of the other messengers. Also, there is no unity between humanity and divinity here, just as the sun and its attributes that exist in it did not unite with the air or the earth which received its rays and heat.
[The Christians' use of the prophets' statements as an argument for the trinity]
They said: "We, the Christians, did not give him these names on our own accord. But Allah named His divinity with them. He said by the tongue of Prophet Moses in the Torah, addressing the Children of Israel: 'Is he not the Father who created you, made you and formed you?'" [30] See: Book of Deuteronomy (32: 6).
He also said by his tongue: 'and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters' [31]. See: Book of Genesis (1: 4).
And He said by the tongue of Prophet David: 'nor take your Holy Spirit from me' [32]. See: Book of Psalms (51: 6).
He also said by his tongue: 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens and earth made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth' [33]. See: Book of Psalms (33: 2).
And He said by the tongue of Isaiah: 'The plants wither and the grass dries, but the word of our God endures forever.' [34] See: Book of Isaiah (40: 7).
And He said by the tongue of the righteous Job: 'The Spirit of God has created me; and He teaches me.' [35] See: Book of Job (33: 4).
Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospel said to his noble students: 'Go to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.' [36] See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19-20).
And He Almighty said in this Book: {Our Word has already been given to Our slaves, the messengers.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 171] Allah Almighty also says: {Then Allah will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110] Allah Almighty also says: {And Allah spoke to Moses directly.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 164]
And in Surat at-Tahrīm, Allah Almighty says: {Also [the example of] Mary, daughter of ‘Imrān who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her through Our angel [Gabriel], and she firmly believed in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures and was one of the obedient.} [Surat at-Tahrīm: 12] And all Muslims say: The Book is the speech of Allah, and speech can only belong to a living and speaking being. These are inseparable traits that resemble names. Each trait is different from the other; whereas God is one and cannot be divided or separated." [37] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (pp. 418-419).
The response comprises the following points:
[38] The First Aspect: That we say: The speech of the prophets (peace be upon them) can only be true and right, and it may not contain anything known to be false by clear reasoning; though it may contain things that would otherwise be unfathomable if the prophets did not talk about them. A prophet's speech would not contradict any of the statements that he made elsewhere or the statements of the other prophets. Indeed, all that the prophets said is true and right, and their statements confirm one another. Marginal remark/ The prophets bring things that are intellectually overwhelming, but not intellectually impossible.
Allah ordained upon us to believe in all what they said, and declared as disbelievers those who believe in some of them and disbelieve in some others. So, what is known by clear reasoning would not contradict what is known by authentic transmission from the prophets, and what is known by authentic transmission from some of them would not contradict what is known by authentic transmission from some others. But some of the laws and teachings may differ in terms of the commands and prohibitions.
As for their statements about Allah and His angels, books, messengers, and the Last Day, they may not contradict each other.
If this is so, what they transmit from the prophets can only be used for argument if its chain of transmission and text are ascertained; thus, it is known to be authentically transmitted from them, and its translation from Hebrew to the other language, such as Roman, Arabic, or Syriac, is known to be correct. It should be known thereafter that they really intended this meaning.
The Christians do not have any argument from the prophets in which these three requirements are fulfilled. In this regard, it is sufficient for us to deny and ask them to address those three requirements. If they claim to have taken the trinity from the prophets, we ask them to fulfill these three requirements.
[39] The Second Aspect: That we demonstrate the interpretation of the words they cited. As for His statement by the tongue of Moses (peace be upon him), addressing the Children of Israel: "Is he not the Father who created you, made you and formed you?" In this, He is named a father for other than the Messiah (peace be upon him). This is similar to His statement to Israel: "You are My first-born son" [40], and to David: "You are My son and my beloved one" [41], and the Messiah's statement: "Your Father and my Father." [42] They acknowledge that the meaning intended by this, with regard to other than the Messiah, is lordship, not real fatherhood involving birth, which they exclusively ascribe to the Messiah. Marginal remark/ Nothing in the prophets' texts proves the trinity. See: Book of Exodus (4: 22). See: Book of Psalms (2: 7). See: Gospel of John (20: 17).
[43] The Third Aspect: That this is an argument against them. If He is named a Father for other than the Messiah in the previous scriptures, with this only giving the meaning of lordship, then it is known that this word in the language of these books means: the Lord. So, it should also be taken to give the same meaning with regard to the Messiah. Basically, the same word in the same text would not give a different meaning. Marginal remark/ The correct interpretation of calling the Messiah "Father"
[44] The Fourth Aspect: That its use in the meaning which they exclusively keep to the Messiah can be established if it is known that the meaning they claimed about the Messiah was intended. If this meaning is established with the mere use of the word "father", this will entail an all-inclusive application. It is not known that this meaning was intended with regard to Allah, and this cannot be established until it is known that this meaning was intended with regard to the Messiah. If knowing each of them is contingent upon the other, then none of them can be known. So, it became clear that they have no knowledge about the word "father" being intended to give the meaning they exclusively keep to the Messiah, in light of the dispute. Marginal remark/ The invalidity of the Christians' interpretation given that it was not authentically transmitted from the Messiah
[45] The Fifth Aspect: That the books of the prophets and their statements do not contain the use of the word "father" in the meaning of the father of divine nature or the use of the word "son" in the meaning of anything of divinity - neither His word nor His life. Indeed, there is no use of the word "son" except with the meaning of a created being. So, the word "son" only refers to a created son. As a consequence, the word "son" that refers to the Messiah means the human nature, which disproves their statement that "the son" and "the Holy Spirit" are two attributes of Allah, and that the Messiah is a name for the divine nature and the human one. Marginal remark/ "Son" in the prophets' terminology does not refer to anything divine.
It became clear that the texts of the prophets' books invalidate the doctrine of the Christians and contradict their Nicene Creed. So, they have two choices: believing in the prophets' words and invalidating their religion or considering their religion as valid and denying the prophets' words. This is what is required.
They said: "He also said by his tongue: 'and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water.'"
We say: This is in the beginning of the first book - The Book of Genesis - when He mentions that He first created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was inundated with water, and the spirit of Allah was hovering over the water. He said that the water was above dust, the air was above the water, and the spirit of Allah was the wind above the water. This is the interpretation adopted by all communities - the Muslims, the Jews, and the rational ones among the Christians. The word in Hebrew is pronounced thus: Ruwwah.
The wind "rīh in Arabic" is called "rawh" and its plural is "arwāh". By this, He did not mean that the life of Allah was hovering over the water. No rational person would hold this view. This is because the life of Allah is an inseparable attribute and does not depart from Him or reside in anything else. So, it is impossible that it exists in water or anything else, let alone hover over the water. What may hover over the water should be an independent body. This was just a report about the wind that was moving over the water.
Similar to this is Prophet Muhammad's statement: "Do not curse the wind, for it is from the blessings of Allah. It brings mercy, and it brings punishment. When you see it, do not curse it, but seek Allah's refuge from its evil and ask Allah for its goodness." [46] And his statement: "I find the breath of the Most Compassionate coming from the direction of Yemen." [47] Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1007), Ad-Diyā’ al-Maqdisi in "Al-Ahādīth Al-Mukhtārah" no. (1224), and Abu Dāwūd in his "Sunan Collection" no. (5097). Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (11134), Al-Bukhāri in "At-Tarīkh Al-Kabīr" (4/70-71), Ibn Abi ‘Āsim in "Al-Āhād Wa Al-Mathāni" (4/263), and Al-Bayhaqi in "Al-Asmā’ Wa As-Sifāt" (2/391).
They said: "And He said by the tongue of Prophet David: 'nor take your Holy Spirit from me.'"
We say: This is evidence that the Holy Spirit lay in David, which indicates that the Holy Spirit that was in the Messiah belongs to the same kind. So, it becomes known that the Holy Spirit is not exclusively linked to the Messiah, something they acknowledge. It is mentioned in a number of places in the books in their hands that the Holy Spirit indwelled in people other than the Messiah, like David and the disciples and others.
Thus, if "the Holy Spirit" was the life of Allah, and whoever it indwelled becomes divine, this would entail that he is a god, which would also entail that all these persons contain both divine and human natures like the Messiah. But this runs counter to the consensus among the Muslims, the Christians, and the Jews.
This also entails that the Messiah has two divine natures within him: the word and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Messiah, along with the human nature, constitutes two hypostases: the hypostasis of the word and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.
Also: this is not an inseparable attribute of Allah. Indeed, the attribute of Allah that exists in Him, or rather the attribute of anyone does not depart from him and reside in others. This does not indicate that Allah is named the Holy Spirit, or that His life is called the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit from whom and from Mary the Messiah was incarnated is Allah Almighty.
You said: "We, the Christians, did not give him these names on our own accord. But Allah named His divinity with them." What you mentioned about the prophets does not include that Allah named Himself or any of His attributes "the Holy Spirit", neither did He name Himself or any of His attributes "a son". So, it is invalid for you to call His attribute of life "the Holy Spirit", or His attribute of knowledge "a son".
You also claim that the word and the Holy Spirit exclusively pertain to the Messiah. So, if the Holy Spirit was in David (peace be upon him), the disciples and in others, this disproves your claim of specifying it to the Messiah. It is known by consensus that David (peace be upon him) is a servant of Allah Almighty, even if the Holy Spirit was in him. Likewise, the Messiah is a servant of Allah, even if the Holy Spirit existed in him. So, what you mentioned about the prophets serves as an argument against you and in favor of the people of Islam - not in your favor.
They said: "He also said by the tongue of Prophet David (peace be upon him): 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens and earth made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.'"
We say to them: This is also an argument against you, for the following reasons:
[48] The First Reason: Allah created things with His word, which is "Be", as He said in the Torah: "Let such and such be. Let such and such be. Let such and such be." [49] And also in the Psalms: "Because He said, and they came into being. It was a command, and they were created." [50] So, their creation was the result of His statement. The Messiah is not these words. Marginal remark/ That the Messiah is not the word, but he was created with the word. See: Book of Genesis (1: 1-6). See: Book of Psalms (5: 148).
[51] The Second Reason: "The word of Allah" is a name referring to a category. Indeed, the words of Allah are endless. Allah Almighty says: {Say: "If the ocean were ink for [writing] the Words of my Lord, the ocean would surely run dry before the Words of my Lord are finished, even if We brought its like to resupply it."} [Surat al-Kahf: 109] The Torah also points to the multiplicity of words. If this is so, then the Messiah is not the combination of these words, but he was created through one word of them. Marginal remark/ The impossibility of the Messiah being the very word, for Allah has numerous words
[52] The Third Reason: The Messiah, according to you, is the Creator. Although you say, "he is the son and the word," you say, "he is God, the Creator" and say, "he is a true god from a true God" and say "One God." So, you combine two contradictory things. Marginal remark/ The contradiction between the Messiah being the word and their belief that he is the Creator
If he was the Creator, then he is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and it should not be said: By him the heavens and the earth were made, for "by him" is a description of his condition. Likewise, it is said: Allah created all things by "Be" and created all things by His power.
His statement "by the word of the Lord were the heavens made" entails that the word is an attribute that was subjected to action, not that it is the Creator. Nonetheless, the Messiah, according to you, is the Creator, not an attribute through which creation was made.
[53] The Fourth Reason: "The word of Allah" refers to the category of His words, as Allah Almighty says: {and He rendered the word of the disbelievers the lowest, whereas the Word of Allah is supreme.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 40] And as the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Whoever fights so that the word of Allah is supreme is indeed fighting in the cause of Allah." [54] Hence, the intended meaning is that Allah created the heavens and the earth by His word, saying "Be". This has no inference to the Messiah (peace be upon him). Marginal remark/ Nothing in the mention of the word of Allah indicates that the Messiah is the intended one. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2810) and Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (1904).
As for your transmitted text "their starry host by the breath of his mouth," whether it is true or false, provides no argument for you. This is because if this word is intended to mean "the life of Allah", indeed affirming the life of Allah is true. But He did not call "the life of Allah" "the Holy Spirit" as you alleged.
And if He intends something other than "the life of Allah", it does not avail you. You claimed that the life of Allah is the Holy Spirit, and you even said that his statement in the Gospel, "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," [55] refers to "the life of Allah." You also claimed that the prophets called him thus. But you did not mention a text transmitted from the prophets which states that they called His life "the Holy Spirit"; rather, you transmitted from them things consistent with what is in the Qur’an: that "the Holy Spirit" is not intended to mean "the life of Allah". If we presume that this word is used for this and that, it does not necessarily entail that the Messiah meant by "the Spirit of Allah": the life of Allah. So, how about if this word was never used as part of the prophets' statements to mean the life of Allah?! See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
They said: "And He said by the tongue of Isaiah: 'The plant dries and the grass withers, but the word of our God endures forever.'"
We say to them: He either means by the word of Allah His knowledge, a specific word, or a reference to Allah's words as a category. In either case, this has no argument in your favor.
If he means the knowledge of Allah, indeed the knowledge of Allah endures forever, whether he meant the knowledge existing in Him or His information which He stated will endure. So, you have no argument for it.
Similarly, if he means a specific word for the Messiah in your belief, it is not a specific word among His words, but he, according to you, is "the word" and "God, the Creator". This phrase, however, has nothing to indicate that he meant the Messiah by "the word".
This is further clarified, and that the intended meaning is not as they claimed, as he said: "the word of God endures forever," since He described it as enduring, not as timeless.
In their belief, the word born out of the Father is ageless and timeless; it endures and will endure. Such a thing does not need to be described as enduring and permanent, unlike the promised bliss, mercy, and reward, which are described as enduring and permanent. Allah Almighty says: {its fruit is eternal.} [Surat ar-Ra‘d: 35] Allah Almighty also says: {Indeed, this is Our provision [for the righteous] that will never cease.} [Surat Sād: 54] And in the Psalms: "Give thanks to the Lord; for he is good: because his mercy endures forever." [56] See: Book of Psalms (118: 1).
They said: "And He said by the tongue of the truthful Job: 'The Spirit of God has made me; and He teaches me.'"
We say to them: There is no argument in this, because you claimed that the prophets called "the life of Allah" the Holy Spirit. But he did not say "the Holy Spirit" here; rather, he said: the Spirit of Allah.
"The Spirit of Allah" refers to the angel who is a spirit Allah chose and loved - as Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an: {then We sent to her Our Spirit [Gabriel] and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being. She said: "I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you; [do not approach me] if you fear Allah." He said: "I am only a messenger from your Lord to grant you a righteous son."} [Surat Mariyam: 17-19] Allah Almighty says that He sent His Spirit to her, and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being, and he turned out to be His messenger.
So, it became known that the Spirit here means an angel. It is a spirit Allah chose and attributed to Himself, as other things, which He endowed with traits dear to Him, which are attributed to Him. An example is the verse that reads: {Hands off the she-camel of Allah and her drink!} [Surat ash-Shams: 13] And the verse that reads: {and purify My House for those who circumambulate it, and those who stand up in prayer, and those who bow and prostrate.} [Surat al-Hajj: 26] And the verse that reads: {a spring from which Allah’s slaves will drink.} [Surat al-Insān: 6]
If this is so, then this phrase, if authentically transmitted from the prophet and correctly translated, may possibly mean: The angel fashioned me in the womb of my mother, and he teaches me. Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said: "When forty-two nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends an angel and gives him shape. Then, he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: 'My Lord, would he be male or female?' And your Lord decides as He wills and the angel then writes down that also and then says: 'My Lord, what about his age?' And your Lord decides as He wills, and the angel writes it down. Then, he says: 'My Lord, what about his livelihood?' And then the Lord decides as He wills and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand, and nothing is added to it, and nothing is deducted from it." [57] Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2645).
It may be said: Similar to this is his statement in the Psalms, the Creation Psalm: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created." [58] It is also stated in this Psalm: "He spoke, and they came into being and he commanded, and they were created." [59] Creation may be attributed to the angel, like in the verse that reads: {You made something from clay in the shape of a bird by My permission, and breathed into it, and it became a bird by My permission.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110] So, it is said that something from clay in the shape of a bird is made by the permission of Allah; and likewise, the angel creates the sperm in the womb by Allah's permission. See: Book of Psalms (104: 30). See: Book of Psalms (148: 5).
It is not possible that he meant to say that the life of Allah created him and teaches him, for an attribute does not create or teach. Rather, it is the Lord Who creates and teaches; He created man from a clinging clot and taught by the pen, and He taught man what he did not know. But Allah Almighty may create through the angels, for the angels are the messengers of Allah within the creation. So, it is valid to attribute the action to the intermediaries sometimes and to the Lord at other times. This exists in the other scriptures in a number of places, as it exists in the Qur’an: {Allah takes away the souls at the time of their death and of those who do not die during their sleep.} [Surat az-Zumar: 42] Another verse reads: {until when death comes upon one of you, Our angels take his soul, and they never fall short in their duty.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 61] And a third verse reads: {Say: The angel of death, who is in charge of you, will take your souls, then to your Lord you will be brought back."} [Surat as-Sajdah: 11]
All is true. If a word in the statements of some prophets has some meaning, and it is not found to mean another meaning at odds with the prophets' speech, then it is more appropriate to take it to give the meaning consistent with the prophets' speech, not a different meaning. This said, nothing in their statements indicates that the life of Allah is called "a spirit" or that Allah's attributes create created beings.
They said: "Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospel said to his noble students: 'Go therefore to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.'"
We say to them: This is the basis of your claim about the three hypostases, and nothing therein indicates this, neither textually nor apparently. The word "son" is never used in the scriptures with the meaning of one of Allah's attributes, and none of the prophets called Allah's knowledge or speech "His son". However, they, in your religion, called His servant or servants "His son" or "His children". If this is so, then your claim, that the Messiah meant by the knowledge: "the son of Allah and His speech", is utter falsehood about the Messiah. By doing so, you ascribed a meaning to this word different from the usage adopted by him and others, whether in real or figurative terms. Indeed, there is no worse falsehood or distortion of the prophets' statements than this!
If the word "son" was used with regard to an attribute of Allah, His life would be called "a son" and His power would be called "a son", as it would be another fault in such a case to restrict the use of the word "son" to knowledge and exclude life and other attributes. So, what about if it was not used with this meaning in the first place?
Also, they did not use "the Holy Spirit" with regard to Allah's life or intend it to mean Allah's life, which is His attribute. Rather, they intended this term to mean what Allah sends down to the people of truth and the prophets and supports them therewith - like David's statement: "nor take your Holy Spirit from me."
Moreover, "the Holy Spirit", according to them, indwelled in the disciples, and we have previously pointed out that "the Holy Spirit" means the angel and means the guidance and strength Allah puts in people's hearts. An example is His statement in some scriptures: "In these days I pour out My Spirit on every saint." [60] And in David's Psalms: "Your good Spirit guides me in the land of uprightness." [61] See: The Acts of the Apostles (2: 17). See: Book of Psalms (143: 3).
This is made clear by their statement as part of their Nicene Creed: "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnated from the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary." They stated that this exists in the divine scriptures, and the divine scriptures contain nothing but the truth. Undoubtedly, what is in these books is similar to what is in the Qur’an, and it is mentioned in the Qur’an that Allah sent His Spirit to Mary and breathed into her, and she got pregnant with the Messiah (peace be upon him). Allah Almighty says: {then We sent to her Our Spirit [Gabriel] and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being. She said: "I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you; [do not approach me] if you fear Allah." He said: "I am only a messenger from your Lord to grant you a righteous son." She said: "How can I have a son when no man has touched me, nor have I ever been unchaste?" He said: "Thus it will be, your Lord says: 'It is easy for Me; We make him a sign for people and a mercy from Us. This matter has already been decreed.'" So, she conceived him and withdrew with him to a distant place.} [Surat Mariyam: 17-22] To the rest of the story.
This Spirit is the messenger, as the verse reads: {I am only a messenger from your Lord to grant you a righteous son.} He breathed into her from this Spirit, and so the Messiah was created from this Spirit and from his mother Mary, as they said in the Nicene Creed: "He became incarnate from Mary and from the Holy Spirit."
They believed, however, that "the Holy Spirit" from whom and from Mary the Messiah was created is the life of Allah. But there is no such indication in the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures explicitly point to the contrary. This also runs counter to their statement that what is united with the Messiah is the hypostasis of the word, which is knowledge. So, if he became incarnate from Mary and the hypostasis of the word, he thus did not become incarnate from "the Holy Spirit", and if it was from "the Holy Spirit", then it was not from the word. And if the Messiah became incarnate from all these, he would thus be two hypostases: the hypostasis of the word and the hypostasis of the Spirit; whereas the Christians, with all their three sects, say that what is united with him is the hypostasis of the word, not the hypostasis of life. So, this shows:
the contradiction in their Nicene Creed.
the error in their interpretation of the prophets' statements.
And that what is authentically transmitted from the prophets is true and consistent with what was told by Muhammad, the final Prophet, and it does not contradict any of the prophets' statements or clear reasoning.
And that they took the prophets' speech as regards "the son", "the Holy Spirit", and other words to mean something different from the existing usage of these words, whereas they abandoned the meaning intended by their speech. This is a profound form of distorting their speech by taking it out of context and altering the meanings of the words of Allah. So, how can it be valid to take the term "the Holy Spirit" to mean something different from the usage adopted by the prophets and from what they intended, and to abandon the common meaning with which they always used it? Would anyone do this except those who distort the prophets' speech and fabricate lies about them? Rather, the apparent meaning of these words is that they baptize them in the name of "the Father", by which they intend, in their language, to mean "the Lord", and in the name of "the son", by which they intend, in their language", to mean "the educator", which refers here to the Messiah. And "the Holy Spirit" is the Holy Spirit with whom Allah supported the Messiah, through the angel, the revelation, and other things. This is the interpretation of some of their leading scholars.
This is what they mentioned in their book as an argument they used in support of their belief in the three hypostases, saying: "We, the Christians, did not call Allah Father, Son, or Holy Spirit on our own accord, but Allah called His divinity by these names."
It became clear that what they mentioned about the prophets has no indication, textually or apparently, that any of the prophets called Allah or any of His attributes "a son" or "a Holy Spirit".
And it became clear that their appellation of Allah's knowledge and speech as "a son" and their appellation of His life as "the Holy Spirit" are names they invented and Allah sent down no authority about them; thus, they have no argument, verbal or rational, for their claim about the hypostases. And that they have no religious grounds for adopting the Trinity and limiting Allah's attributes to three. It also became clear that this has no rational grounds either, since those people fall under the category depicted in the verse that reads: {If only we had listened or understood, we would not be among the dwellers of the Blazing Fire.} [Surat al-Mulk: 10] And in the verse that reads: {Do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are just like livestock, rather they are further astray from the right way.} [Surat al-Furqān: 44]
Then, they began to claim that what was revealed to Muhammad (ﷺ) constitutes an argument for their claim about the hypostases. They invented the belief in the hypostases and the trinity before Muhammad's mission. This is well known among them since they invented "the Nicene Creed", which was laid down by 318 persons in the presence of King Constantine. If they possess no rational or verbal argument from the prophets before Muhammad's advent, how can they have an argument from what Muhammad (ﷺ) came with, after their invention of the Nicene Creed? This is especially so in light of the apparent and mass transmitted knowledge that Muhammad (ﷺ) declared them disbelievers and misguided people in the Book revealed to him, he conducted Jihad against them, and commanded the Muslims to do the same. An example is the verse that reads: {Those who say, "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary," have certainly disbelieved.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17] And the verse that reads: {And the Christians say: "The Messiah is the son of Allah." These are mere words that they utter, imitating the words of the disbelievers before them. May Allah ruin them; how can they be deluded?} [Surat at-Tawbah: 30] And the verse that reads: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say: "Allah is one of Three."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 73] And the verse that reads: {and do not say "Three" [Trinity]. Cease: that is better for you.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171] These are in addition to other similar verses.
They said: "And He also said in this Book: 'Our Word has already been given to Our slaves, the righteous ones.'"
We say to them: You distorted the wording and meaning of the verse, which reads: {Our Word has already been given to Our slaves, the messengers, that it is surely they who will be given victory, and that Our soldiers will surely be the victors.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 171-173]
The word already given to His slaves, the messengers, is His statement: {that it is surely they who will be given victory.} So, He says that a word from Him was already given to His slaves, the messengers, that He would grant them victory - as Allah Almighty says: {Were it not for a prior decree from your Lord [O Prophet] and a time already set, they would have already been punished.} [Surat Tāha: 129] So, a word, or a decree, was already given by Him about the victory He would grant to the messengers and that He would fill Hellfire with jinn and humankind, and so on.
These misleading people distorted the wording of the verse, changing "the messengers" into "the righteous ones" and saying that "the Word" refers to the Messiah; whereas nothing in the words gives this indication in any way or that "the Messiah has already been given to Our slaves" is a correct meaning. Allah Almighty says: {Our Word has already been given to Our slaves, the messengers, that it is surely they who will be given victory, and that Our soldiers will surely be the victors.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 171-173]
They said: "He also said: {O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit."} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110]"
We say to them: There is no doubt about that. But it provides no argument in your favor; rather, it is an argument against you. Allah supported the Messiah (peace be upon him) with the Holy Spirit, as He says in this verse. Yet, this does not exclusively apply to the Messiah, as Allah Almighty supported others as well with the Holy Spirit.
They should either acknowledge that "the Holy Spirit", with regard to other than the Messiah, does not mean [62] the life of Allah. If it is proved to give some other meaning than life, then if it is also used to mean Allah's life, it does not necessarily give this specific meaning when used concerning the Messiah. What then if it is not used with the meaning of Allah's life with regard to the Messiah? The female form is used when referring to the Holy Spirit as a term, not the Holy Spirit itself.
Or they should claim that it is intended to mean Allah's life with regard to the prophets and the disciples. If they said this, it would entail that the divine nature indwells in all the prophets and the disciples. Thereupon, there would be no difference between those and the Messiah.
It would also entail that two divine natures exist in the Messiah: the divine nature of the word and the divine nature of the Spirit. Thus, two hypostases united with him.
Then, with regard to His statement: {and We strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 87] It could not mean the life of Allah, for Allah's life is an attribute that exists in His Essence and does not exist in other than Him and cannot characterize other existing beings other than Him. To them, however, the Messiah is Allah, the Creator. So, how could he be strengthened with other than himself?
Also, what is united with the Messiah is "the word", not life. So, it is not appropriate for him to be strengthened with it.
This made it clear that they want to distort the Qur’an as they distorted the previous scriptures, and that their views, when it comes to interpreting the ambiguous verses in the divine scriptures, fall under the same category.
They said: "He also said: {And Allah spoke to Moses directly.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 164]"
We say to them: What argument do you have in this? It is actually an argument against you. It is established that Allah spoke to Moses directly, and the speech of Allah which Moses (peace be upon him) heard from Him is not the Messiah. So, it becomes known that the Messiah is not the speech of Allah; whereas, to them, he is the word of Allah, and he is the knowledge of Allah, and he is Allah!
It is known that the words of Allah are too many, like the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an, as well as other speech. The Messiah is not part of this. To them, the Messiah is the Creator. If the Messiah was the very speech of Allah, he would not be a creator or a worshiped god, for the speech of Allah did not create the heavens or the earth, and it is not a god to be worshipped. Rather, Allah's speech is like His other attributes, such as His life and power. No one ever says: O knowledge of Allah, forgive me; O speech of Allah, forgive me. But we worship and supplicate to the Lord Who possesses the knowledge, power, and speech, and Who spoke to Moses directly.
They said: "He also said in Surat at-Tahrīm: {Also [the example of] Mary, daughter of ‘Imrān who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her through Our Spirit [Gabriel], and she firmly believed in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures and was one of the obedient.} [Surat at-Tahrīm: 12]
We say to them: As for His statement: {so We breathed into her through Our Spirit} And His statement in Surat al-Anbiyā’: {And [remember Mary] who guarded her chastity; We breathed in her [garment] through Our spirit [Gabriel] and made her and her son a sign for all people.} [Surat al-Anbiyā’: 91]
These are explained by the verses that read: {then We sent to her Our Spirit [Gabriel] and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being. She said: "I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you; [do not approach me] if you fear Allah." He said: "I am only a messenger from your Lord to grant you a righteous son."} [Surat Mariyam: 17-19] In another reading of the Qur’an: {so that He may grant you a righteous son.}
So, He informed her that he is Allah's messenger and spirit, and that he appeared before her in a human form; and he mentioned that he is the messenger of Allah to her. It becomes known from this that His Spirit is a created being and a slave to Him. It does not mean His life, which is His attribute, Exalted be He.
And also, His statement: {so We breathed into her through Our Spirit.} This is similar to His statement regarding Adam (peace be upon him): {When I have shaped him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down before him in prostration.} [Surat al-Hijr: 29]
The Messiah is likened to Adam in the verse that reads: {The similitude of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 59]
The misconception in this regard arose among some ignorant people due to the fact that when a person says, "my spirit", he refers by this to the soul lying within his body, which is an independent entity; nonetheless, some people say it to refer to life.
Man is composed of body and soul, which is an independent entity, according to the earlier Muslims and their leading scholars and the majority of people in different communities. The Almighty Lord is far exalted above this. He is not composed of body and soul, and His Spirit may not be intended to mean the same as intended by man when he says: my spirit. Rather, Allah's angels and what He sends down to His prophets, including revelation, guidance, support, etc., are ascribed to Him.
They said: "And the Muslims say: The Book is the speech of Allah, and speech can only belong to a living and speaking being. These are essential traits that are dealt with like names. Each trait is different from the other; whereas God is one and cannot be divided or separated."
We say to them: As for the Muslims' statement that the Book - i.e., the Qur’an - is the speech of Allah, this is true; and the speech can only belong to a speaking being.
The Muslims say: Allah is living and speaking. He spoke in the Torah, the Gospel, the Qur’an, and elsewhere. The Qur’an mentions Allah's speech in numerous places. Nonetheless, none among the Muslims ever said: The speech of Allah is a god or a lord. Likewise, none of them said that His life is a god or a lord, or that it is equal to the Almighty Lord in His Essence.
As for their statement: "These are essential attributes."
If by "essential", they meant that each attribute is an essence, this is apparently wrong, for an attribute that is dependent upon something else is not an independent essence.
But if they meant by "essential" that these are attributes related to the His Essence, as opposed to the attributes related to His actions, like the Creator and the Sustainer, it is well known that His essential attributes include power and others; they are not limited to these.
But if by Jawhariyyah (substantiality) they mean that these attributes are inherent and constitutive and the other attributes are extrinsic, based on the view of logicians - people of Greece - who differentiate in fundamental attributes between this and that, then this is wrong from a number of aspects:
One aspect is that these people's differentiation in fundamental attributes between one attribute and another. This includes regarding some of them as constitutive and part of the essence, and some others as extrinsic, supplementary, and outside the essence. These are considered invalid by the majority of thinkers in the different communities from among the adherents of the religions and others. This has been extensively addressed as part of the response to those pedants. And it has been pointed out that what they claim about the composition of the different kinds of attributes and essences only exists in people's minds and has no existence in the real sense; what exists in minds differs according to their different perceptions. They may sometimes perceive something in an overall manner, and sometimes in a detailed manner. What they called "the completion of the essence", "what is part of the essence", and "what lies outside the essence and is fundamental for it" goes back, if verified, to the meaning indicated by the words through compatibility, containment, and involvement.
What the Christians intend by Jawhariyyah (substantiality) differs from what those people intend by Dhātiyyah (intrinsic). Hence, we did not elaborate on it. Rather, they say: The three are essences. Those logicians differentiate between what is fundamental for essence and what is fundamental for its existence, based on the view that there are two things outside: existence and another essence other than existence.
Another Aspect: If we assume that the fundamental attributes were divided into inherent constitutive and external fundamental, being attributes of the Almighty Lord; knowledge would not be more worthy of being described as inherent than the ability, as it is not appropriate to mention the knowing, living, and self-sustaining one more than mentioning the able, living, and self-sustaining one.
Since the Christians believe in three hypostases and they alleged that this is established by the revealed religion, and by saying so, they are in fact contradicting the revealed religion. A group of them came to say: He is existing, living, and knowing. And another group says: He is existing, knowing, and able. They replace the living with the able and consider "the Holy Spirit" to be His ability.
Although this view is better in meaning, taking "the Holy Spirit" to mean the ability is quite far from the truth, and its error is apparent to everyone. They need to establish the hypostasis of the word which they sometimes say is the knowledge and at other times say is the wisdom. They also sometimes call it the uttering, as they did in this book of theirs. This is because what is united with the Messiah, according to them, is the hypostasis of the word. So, they sometimes attach life to it, and some other times they attach the ability to it.
They sometimes say that "the Father" is the existence and sometimes say it is the independent being. At other times they say it is the essence. In Syriac, the independent being is called "the entity", and they sometimes call it "the existence".
All this stems from their confusion and misguidance, for they cannot find three meanings that deserve to be essential to the exclusion of the other attributes, whether "essential" is construed to mean "essences", "constitutive essential", or anything else.
And their phrase: "that are dealt with as names."
If by "names" they mean proper names or unique names, with the rest of them being attributes, indeed "the Living" and "the Knowing" are derivative names that give the meaning of knowledge and life, and "the Able" indicates ability.
If they mean that He is called by these names, indeed Allah has numerous names. The most excellent names belong to Him. One of them is "the Able". The ability entails the meaning of His power over created beings, which is not entailed by knowledge. His creation of created beings points to His ability more than it shows His knowledge. In fact, His possession of power is more apparent than His possession of knowledge.
And their phrase: "Each trait is different from the other."
If they mean by this that the attributes of the Almighty Lord may be different and separate from Him, which is actually what they said, and they nonetheless say that they are attached to Him, indeed they thus combine two opposite things. Plus, their citation of the sun rays as an example is invalid and it serves as an argument against them, not in their favor. The rays that exist in the air, on the ground, the mountains, the trees, and on the walls do not lie within the sun itself, and what lies within the sun does not exist in the air and on the ground.
If they say: Rather, the knowledge that exists in Him overflows with knowledge to the hearts of the prophets, as the rays overflow from the sun.
We say to them: This does not exclusively apply to the Messiah. Rather, it is common between him and other prophets. Moreover, this does not involve the indwelling of the Lord or His inseparable attribute in any of His created beings, nor indicates that a slave in whom knowledge and faith indwelled could turn into a worshiped god.
And if they mean that they do exist in Him and each one has a different name than the other, this becomes a verbal dispute, as to whether they are called thus or not.
And their statement: "God is one; one Creator, one Lord."
It is true in itself, but they contradicted it by their statement in the creed of their faith: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of Allah, a true god from a true God, from the Essence of his Father, and equal to the Father in His Essence." Here they establish the existence of two gods. Then, they establish the existence of the Holy Spirit as a third god, saying that it is prostrated to. Thus, they come to establish the existence of three gods, whereas they say: We affirm the existence of one God. This is a clear contradiction and a combination of two opposite things: affirmation and negation.
Therefore, some rational people said: People's statements can generally be conceived, except for that of the Christians, because those who first made it did not conceive what they said; rather, they spoke out of ignorance and combined in their speech two opposite things. Hence, it was said: If ten Christians were to gather together, they would differ and express eleven different views.
It was also said: If you asked a Christian man and his wife and son about their monotheistic belief, the man would express an opinion different from that of his wife, and his son would say something different from both.
And their phrase: "He cannot be divided or separated."
It contradicts what they mentioned in their Nicene Creed and the example they set for comparison, as they likened Him to the sun's rays, though the rays can be divided and separated. What rays do in some place constitutes only a part of them. Moreover, part of the rays may disappear while some other parts remain. If something is put within the line of a ray, it divides it into two sides, and the ray that has been between them becomes located on that higher side separating the two lower rays.
This shows that the ray exists on the ground and in the air, and each can be divided and separated. What exists in a part is also a part, for when something is put in a certain place and condition, it gets attributed to it, and this entails the division and separation of that place.
They also said: "He united with the Messiah; and he ascended to the heaven and sat on the right side of the Father." In their belief, ever since the divine nature united with human nature, it did not depart from it. Rather, when he ascended to the heaven and sat on the right side of the Father, the one who ascended, according to them, is the Messiah, who is both divine and human, a complete god and a complete human. They do not say that the one sitting on the right side of the Father is only the human nature, but that the divine nature united with the human one sat on the right side of the divine nature. Could there be greater division and separation than that?!
This is not part of the prophets' speech, so we may say: It must have a meaning that we cannot comprehend. However, it is the speech of their leading scholars who devised it and made it a creed of their faith. If they said something they did not understand, then they are ignorant people who should not be followed. And if they understood what they said, then no one can accept that the divine nature united with the human one sat on the right side of the divine nature free from unity, except if that divine nature free from unity is separate and different from the united divine nature, and it is not attached to it, but it is, at most, adjacent to it; rather, what is adjacent to the divine nature free from unity must be the human nature united with the divine nature. This is the reality of the division and separation while one of the two parts is separated from the other.
We also say to them: Is the one united with the Messiah Himself the Lord of the worlds or one of His attributes?
If he is the Essence, then he is the Father Himself; thus, the Messiah is the Father Himself. This is something which the Christians agree to be wrong. They rather say: He is Allah, and he is the son of Allah, as Allah says about them. But they do not say that he is the Father, and the Father is Allah, according to them. Indeed, this is an aspect of their contradiction.
If they say that the one united with the Messiah is the attribute of the Lord, indeed the attribute of the Lord does not depart from Him and cannot unite with or indwell in anything other than the Essence.
Also, the attribute itself is not God, the Creator, the Lord of the worlds. Rather, it is His attribute. No rational person could ever say that the speech of Allah, the knowledge of Allah, or the life of Allah is the Lord of the worlds Who created the heavens and the earth. If we even assume that the Messiah was the attribute of Allah itself, he would not be Allah and would not be the Lord of the worlds or the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
However, the Christians say that the Messiah is the Lord of the worlds and the Creator of everything, and he is the Creator of Adam and Mary; and that although he is the son of Adam and Mary, he created that with his divine nature and is the son of Adam and Mary with his human nature.
If the Messiah happened to be the attribute of the Lord, this attribute would not be the Creator. On the contrary, the Messiah is not the attribute of Allah itself, but was created by the word of Allah. He was called the word of Allah because Allah formed him by saying "Be" and called him His Spirit, as He created him with the breathing of the Holy Spirit into his mother. He did not create him as He creates all others - from a human father. Allah Almighty says: {Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those near [to Allah]. He will speak to people in the cradle and in maturity, and he will be one of the righteous. She said: "My Lord, how can I have a child when no man has ever touched me?" He said: "Thus Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees something, He only says to it ‘Be’, and it is."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 45-47]
If they say that what is united with him is part of that, they will thus adopt division and separation, in which case they will face one of the two possibilities:
either invalidation of their doctrine,
or their acknowledgement of division and separation, despite its invalidity.
Also, their statement: "A true god from a true God, from the Essence of his Father, begotten, not created, equal to the Father in His Essence, the only Son of Allah, who was born before all ages."
We say to them: This begotten son who is equal to the Father in the Essence, and who is a true god from a true God: Is he an attribute that exists outside itself? Or an independent entity?
If he is an attribute that exists outside itself, then an attribute is not a god or a creator, and it should not be described as begotten from Allah or equal to Him in Essence. None of the prophets or their followers ever called attributes of Allah His son or His child. Neither did any of them say that an attribute of Allah was begotten from Him. Nor did any rational person say that the timeless attribute was begotten from the timeless Essence.
They say: The Messiah is a god; he created the heavens and the earth as his human nature united with this son who was begotten before all ages, who is equal to the Father in Essence.
This is all a description of a self-sufficient entity, like the independent essences, not a description of an attribute that is dependent on something else. If this is so, then division and separation is a necessary element in their view, for a natural birth entails that something came out of Him. Allah Almighty says: {Yet they ascribe to Him some of His slaves as offspring. Indeed, man is clearly ungrateful. Has He taken for Himself daughters from what He has created, and favored you with sons? When one of them is given tidings of [a baby girl] the like of which he ascribes to the Most Compassionate, his face darkens as he suppresses his rage. Or [do they ascribe to Allah] one who is brought up in adornments and is not able to present a clear argument in disputation? They regard the angels, who are slaves of the Most Compassionate, as female. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be written, and they will be questioned!} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 15-19]
As for this meaning established by some Christian scholars, which they call birth and sonship, they call the timeless and eternal attribute that exists in the one possessing it "a son", and sometimes they call it "utterance" and sometimes "the word", "knowledge", or "wisdom". They say: This was begotten from Allah, and he is the son of Allah. In fact, this was not said by any of the prophets or their followers or any rational person, save for those heretic Christians. No sane person would understand this meaning from birth and sonship.
The prophets did not use the word "son" except in reference to created beings; whereas they say: "He is the Father of the Messiah by nature, and the Father of others according to the situation." Most rational people would not derive anything from this meaning except the sonship that takes place by the separation of a part from the father, something denied by some of their scholars. However, they did not follow the prophets or say something that could be accepted by rational people. So, they went astray in what they transmitted from the prophets and misled their followers and laymen by what they said, though they do not say that the childbirth by Allah is similar to animals' childbirth, which involves the separation of an existed being. They say: This is a divine childbirth, involving the separation of a part of the divine nature and its indwelling in the human nature - and this is the only thing that can be conceived from this childbirth.
Also, their statement: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who emanated from the Father, and who, along with the Father, is prostrated to and glorified, and who spoke in the prophets."
Their words "who emanated from the Father, and who, along with the Father, is prostrated to and glorified;" cannot be said regarding the life of the Lord, which is inseparable from Him, for it does not emanate from Him like the other attributes. If what exists in Him emanates from Him, then His knowledge and power and all His other attributes would be emanating from Him. Emanation is more apparent in speech than life, for speech comes out of the speaker. Life, on the other hand, does not come out of the living. If some of the attributes emanated (from Allah), the attribute which they call "son" and label as knowledge, speech, utterance, or wisdom, would be more worthy of emanation than life, which is beyond that of speech.
They also said: "and who, along with the Father, is prostrated to and glorified." The attribute that exists in the Lord is not something that, along with Him, is prostrated to.
They said: "and who spoke in the prophets." The attribute of the Lord that exists in Him does not speak in the prophets. Rather, this is all the attribute of "the Holy Spirit" which Allah puts in the hearts of the prophets, or the attribute of one of the angels, like Gabriel. So, if this emanated from the Father, and emanation involves coming out, could there be greater division and separation than that?!
If they liken that to the emanation of rays from the sun, this is wrong for a number of reasons:
One reason is that a ray is something that casually exists in the air and on the ground. It is not an independent essence; whereas in their belief, this is prostrated to and is an essence.
Another reason is that a ray existing in the air and on the ground is not an attribute of the sun and does not exist in it, whereas the life of the Lord is an inseparable attribute of Him.
Another reason is that they mentioned emanation only with regard to "the Holy Spirit" and did not say that "the word" did emanate. Indeed, if emanation was true, it would be more apparent in speech than in life.
Whenever a rational person ponders their speech in "the Nicene Creed" and elsewhere, he will find more contradiction and error which are clear to everyone except for the most ignorant people. Likewise, he will see contravention of the Torah and the Gospel and all other books of Allah in a way obvious to anyone who ponders this and that.
He will also find therein contradiction of clear reasoning in a way obvious to everyone except those who are obstinate or extremely ignorant. Indeed, their view is self-contradictory and opposed to clear reasoning and to the authentically transmitted texts from all prophets and messengers (peace be upon them).
[The Christians' use of reason for argument]
They said: "As for the incarnation of Allah's word, the Creator, in a created being and the birth of both of them together - the word along with the human nature - indeed Allah did not address any of the prophets except through revelation or from behind a veil, according to this Book, in a verse that reads: {It is not for a human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending an angel-messenger to reveal what He wills by His permission.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 51]
If immaterial beings, like the Holy Spirit and others, can only appear in material beings, the word of Allah by which the immaterial and material beings were created appears in material beings. Therefore, He appeared in Jesus, the son of Mary, for man is the noblest among what Allah created. Hence, He addressed humankind, and they witnessed what they witnessed from Him." [63] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 420).
The response comprises a number of ways:
[64] The First Way: To say: What they mentioned and claimed to be an incarnation of Allah's word, the Creator, in a created human being, and their birth together - i.e., the word along with the human nature - which is known as the unity of the divine and human natures, is something rationally impossible. What is known to be rationally impossible could not have been said by any messenger, for the messengers only talk about things not perceived by the mind to be impossible. If there is anything known by clear reasoning to be impossible, the messengers are far above informing about it. Marginal remark/ Rational impossibility
[65] The Second Way: The divine texts explicitly tell that the Messiah is a slave of Allah and not the Creator of the universe. The Christians, on the other hand, say he is a complete god and a complete human. Marginal remark/ Textual impossibility
[66] The Third Way: Discussion of what they mentioned Marginal remark/ Detailed invalidity
As for the first way, it comprises a number of aspects:
The First Aspect: To say: What is united with the Messiah is either the Essence that possesses the attribute of speech or only the speech. If you will, you can say: What is united with him is either the speech along with the Essence or the speech without the Essence.
If what is united with him is the speech along with the Essence, then the Messiah is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and he is the three hypostases. This is untrue, by consensus among the Christians and the followers of the other religions, and by unanimous agreement among the divine scriptures, and it is also wrong according to clear reasoning.
And if what is united with him is the word only, then the word is an attribute, and an attribute does not exist outside someone possessing it, and it is not a creating god, whereas the Messiah in their belief is a creating god. So, their view is false in either way.
And if they say: What is united is the one possessing the attribute. Indeed, the one possessing the attribute, according to them, is the Father, and the Messiah in their belief is not the Father.
If they say: It is the attribute only. Indeed, an attribute does not depart from the one possessing it or exist in other than him. Furthermore, an attribute does not create or provide sustenance, and it is not a god. It also does not sit on the right side of the one possessing it. Yet, the Messiah, according to them, ascended to the heaven and sat on the right side of his Father!
As for it being only the Father, Who is the Essence free from attributes, this is more impossible, and none of them holds this view.
The Second Aspect: The Essence united with the human nature of the Messiah along with the Messiah's human nature - if they became two selves and two essences after the unity, as they were before unity, then this is not unity.
It may be said that they turned into one essence, as some of them say that they became like the fire with a piece of iron, or milk with water, which entails the transformation of both of them, along with their attribute and even their reality, as water and milk transform when mixed, and also the fire with the piece of iron. Thereupon, this would entail the transformation of the divine nature and the change of its attribute and reality. Transformation can only happen by the absence of something and the existence of something else. This necessitates the absence of something from the eternal one whose existence in itself is essential.
Those whose eternity is necessary is impossible to be non-existent, and those whose existence is necessary cannot be non-existent. An eternal being cannot be eternal unless it is independently necessary or it is a prerequisite for an independently necessary being; if it is not a prerequisite for it, then it is not eternal as it is. An independently necessary thing cannot be non-existent, and its prerequisite can only be non-existent if it is non-existent, for the non-existence of the prerequisite entails the non-existence of the thing to which it is closely related.
Then Third Aspect: To be said: People have several views regarding the speech of Allah Almighty, and the belief of the Christians is false according to all those views. So, it is wrong in all ways.
This is because the speech of Allah Almighty:
is either one of His inseparable attributes,
or it is something created by Him and separate from Him.
Or it is neither this nor that. But it is what exists in the souls. [67] The first view was held by the predecessors and the Ash‘arites. The second view was held by the Mu‘tazilites, and the third view was held by philosophers.
This third view is the farthest from the prophets' statements, and it is held by those philosophers and Sabians who say: The attributes do not exist in the Lord, and He is not a Creator of His own accord. They, nonetheless, say that He is not knowledgeable about the details of the universe and is not able to change orbits. His speech, to them, is what streams into souls. They may also have called it "speech" as a description of its condition.
Those people negate speech from Allah, saying: He is not speaking. They may say that He speaks figuratively, but when the prophets (peace be upon them) expressed this view, those who adopted their religions made it general and then interpreted it this way. This is one of two views adopted by the Jahmiyyah.
The Second View: That He is speaking in real terms, but His speech is a created being which He created in others. This is the opinion of the Mu‘tazilites and others. The other opinion belongs to the Jahmiyyah.
Based on these two views, there is no speech existing in Allah so that it can unite with the Messiah or indwell him. A creature is among transient beings, and it cannot be a creating god. Many among the People of the Book - the Jews and the Christians - adopt this view and that one.
As for the first view, it is held by the righteous predecessors of this Ummah and its leading jurists and the majority of its scholars, as well as many among the earlier People of the Book and the majority of their scholars.
It may either be said that the speech is old in terms of its type, i.e., He never ceased speaking by His will; or it is old in essence.
Or it may be said that it is not old, but current.
The first opinion is the one known to have been held by the leading scholars of the Sunnah and Hadīth.
As for those who hold that the speech is old in essence, they say that the speech is not linked to His will and power, given their belief that new incidents do not happen to Him, for what is done by His will and power can only be a new incident. They have two views in this respect:
Some of them said: Old has one meaning, or five meanings, and this meaning takes the form of a command, a prohibition, or information. Indeed, these are attributes of Him, not divisions of Him. If this is expressed in Arabic, it becomes the Qur’an, and if it is expressed in Hebrew, it is the Torah.
Some of them also said: Speech is letters, or letters and voices that are themselves old in individual incidents.
The Third View: That He is speaking according to His will and power, and His speech is independent. They said: It is current and could not be old, since a predestined thing cannot be deemed old.
These groups based their views on the principle that if something is not free from new incidents, it is also new, given the impossibility of the existence of endless things, according to them. So, if this is impossible, then new happenings as a category must have a beginning, just as a specific new happening has a beginning. Besides, if anything does not precede such happenings, existing along with or after them, it is also deemed new. Therefore, those people hold that the words of Allah cannot be endless without a beginning, although some of them say that they are permanent and will endure forever.
As for the view that the words of Allah are endless despite them being independent, this is the opinion reported from the earlier scholars and it is held by most scholars of Hadīth and many scholastics and philosophers. These opinions have been extensively addressed in a number of places.
The bottom line here is that the belief of the Christians is false according to each of these four views, as it has also been demonstrated to be wrong based on the two aforementioned opinions. According to the majority of scholars who say that Allah's words are numerous: they are either endless words that existed without a beginning, or words that have a beginning. If Allah has numerous words, then the Messiah is not the words that have no end, neither is he the numerous words; rather, he was created by a word among the words of Allah, as it is revealed in the divine scriptures of the Qur’an and the Torah that Allah creates things by His words.
In the story of giving Mary glad tidings about the Messiah, Allah Almighty says: {She said: "My Lord, how can I have a child when no man has ever touched me?" He said: "Thus Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees something, He only says to it ‘Be’, and it is."} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 47]
Allah mentions in a number of places in the Qur’an that He creates things by His words. For example, Allah Almighty says: {Whenever He wills something to be, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is.} [Surat Yāsīn: 82]
And in the Torah: "Let it be Sunday, and let it be such and such, let it be such and such." [68] See: Book of Genesis (1: 1-6).
Also, based on the opinion of those people and those who regard His speech as either one meaning or five meanings, or as letters and voices that are one thing, they all say: Speech is an inseparable attribute. It is not conceived to be an independent essence or a creator. Also, speech has no will; neither is it an essence different from the essence of the speaker, nor does it unite with anyone other than the speaker. The majority of them even say: It also does not indwell in anyone other than the speaker.
Those who advocate indwelling do not say that the indweller is an essence or a creating god. So, it becomes clear that what the Christians said is invalid according to all the views stated by people regarding the speech of Allah, although most of these views are wrong. Since the error of the view of the Christians is more apparent to rational people, the error in most of these views was inapparent to those rational people who expressed them, yet the falsity of the Christians' view was not inapparent to them.
Also, those who advocate indwelling are among the extremist people whom the Muslims regard as disbelievers, like those who say that He indwelled in some members of the Prophet's household or in some Shaykhs. They have the issue of indwelling in common with the Christians. They did not say, however, that the indwelling word is the Creating God. In fact, they are in clear contradiction. But the contradiction in the Christians' view is greater than that, though in some respects the view of those people is worse than that of the Christians.
The Fourth Aspect: It should be said: If the Messiah was the very word of Allah, then the word of Allah is not the God Who created the heavens and the earth, neither does it forgive sins nor give recompense for people's deeds, whether His word is one of His attributes or one of His created beings, like all His other attributes and created beings.
Indeed, the knowledge, power, and life of Allah did not create the universe, and no one ever says: O knowledge of Allah, forgive me. O power of Allah, accept my repentance. O speech of Allah, have mercy upon me. Nor does anyone say: O the Torah of Allah, or the Gospel of Allah, or the Qur’an of Allah, forgive me and have mercy on me. Rather, people supplicate to Allah, and He possesses the attributes of perfection. So, how is it if the Messiah is not the very speech of Allah?!
The Messiah is an independent essence, while speech is an inseparable attribute of the speaker; it is not the very speaking Lord. The speaking Lord is the One they call the Father, and the Messiah, according to them, is not the Father, but the Son. Hence, their view is wrong from various aspects:
One Aspect: The belief in three hypostases, while the attributes of Allah do not belong to three persons.
Another Aspect: Regarding the attribute as a creator, whereas an attribute does not create.
A Third Aspect: They considered the Messiah to be the very word, whereas the Messiah was created by the word. It was said to him, "Be", and he was.
The reason the Messiah was particularly called the word of Allah to the exclusion of all other people is that all people were created in the usual way: every one of the children of Adam is created from a sperm-drop, then a clinging clot, then a lump, and then spirit is breathed into him; so man is created from the fluid of the two parents: father and mother.
On the other hand, the Messiah was not created from the semen of a man. But when the Holy Spirit breathed into his mother, she was pregnant, and Allah said to him, "Be", and he was.
Therefore, Allah compared him to Adam, saying: {The similitude of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be,” and he was.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 59] Adam (peace be upon him) was created from dust and water, turning into mud. Then, He made the mud dry. Then, He said to him, "Be", and he was. When He breathed the spirit into him, he became a complete human. He did not subsequently need what his children needed after the breathing of the Spirit.
After the spirit is breathed into the embryo, his body gets completed in the womb of his mother, remaining therein for five months. Then, he comes out as a suckling baby. Then, he grows up gradually.
When the body of Adam (peace be upon him) was created, it was said to him, "Be", and he became a complete human through the breathing of the Spirit into him. However, he was not called the word of Allah, as his body was created from dust and water.
As for the Messiah (peace be upon him), his body was created in a magnificent way by the same breathing of the Spirit into his mother; it was said to him, "Be", and he was. So, he had the particular merit of being created by the word of Allah, which no other human ever had.
It is common in the language of the Arabs and others that if a general term refers to two types, one of the two types is given another term, with the general term being kept for the other type. An example is "moving creature" and "animal", for it generally refers to anything that moves on the ground and to every animal. As humans have a particular term to refer to them, the word "animal' came to be used in reference to beasts, and the word "moving creature" was used to refer to horses, mules, donkeys, and the like. Other examples include such terms as permissible, valid, relatives, etc. So, as people other than the Messiah have a particular name to refer to them, the general term was kept for the Messiah.
The Second Aspect: That what they mentioned constitutes an argument against them. Since Allah did not speak to any of the prophets except through revelation or from behind a veil, it follows that He would not speak to Jesus, the son of Mary, except through revelation, from behind a veil, or through a messenger He sends to him.
Allah's statement: {It is not for a human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation or from behind a veil} [Surat ash-Shūra: 51] applies to all people - the Messiah and others.
If He would not speak to him except through revelation or from behind a veil, then there is greater reason that He would not unite with him or indwell in him. But Allah spoke to what united with him and indwelled in him without a veil, between the divine and human natures, whereas they acknowledged that Allah does not speak to humans except from behind a veil.
The Third Aspect [69]: That His statement: {It is not for a human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation or from behind a veil} [Surat ash-Shūra: 51] entails that the veil should be a veil that screens humans as it screened Moses, which also entails that they cannot see Him in this world, even if He speaks to them. Indeed, He spoke to Moses, but Moses did not see Him. He asked to see Him, saying: {My Lord, reveal Yourself to me so that I may look at You. Allah said: "You will not be able to see Me. But look at the mountain, if it stays firm in its place, only then will you see Me." When his Lord appeared to the mountain, it was leveled to dust, and Moses fell unconscious. When he recovered, he said: "Glory be to You! I repent to You, and I am the first of the believers."} [Surat al-A‘rāf: 143] It was said: I am the first one to believe that none can see You in this world. This is the order in the verified original text.
In their Torah: "Man cannot see Allah in this world and then stay alive." [70] Similarly, when asked about seeing Allah, Jesus said: "Indeed, no one ever saw Allah." [71] This is well known among them. See: Book of Exodus (33: 20). See: Gospel of John (1: 18).
If this is so, then the veil that screens humans must not be human, which disproves the Christians' view. They say: The Lord was veiled with a human veil, which is the body Mary gave birth to; He took it as a veil and spoke to people from behind it. However, the Qur’an establishes that the veil is not from humans.
This clarifies the fourth aspect: That this body which Mary gave birth to is of the same type of the bodies of the children of Adam. So, if it is possible that Allah unites with it and indwells therein, and this human body can bear that in this world, with the strength Allah puts in it, then it is possible that He unites with other bodies with the strength He puts in them. And if it is possible that He unites with them, then there is greater reason for the possibility that He speaks to them without a veil. This, however, contrasts with what they mentioned and with the Qur’an.
So, it becomes clear that the prophets' negation that a person can see Him in this world serves as negation that He may touch any human with greater reason. The Messiah's human nature is a human being. If he cannot see Allah, how can he unite with Him and touch Him like the mixing of milk and water, fire and iron, or body and soul?
The Fifth Way: That it is well known that it is easier, and worthier of being possible for a human being to see Him than to unite with Him or be indwelled by Him. If seeing Allah in this world was negated by Him, and He declared this by the tongues of His Messengers - Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them), then how could it be possible that He unite with humans and be attached to them?!
The Sixth Way: If His indwelling in humans was possible and real, it would be meaningless for this to apply to only one human being to the exclusion of those before and after him, because Allah's ability is all-inclusive and the requirement - i.e., the existence of Allah and His creation's need for it - is there. Hence, as the message was possible, Allah sent more than one messenger from among people, and since it was possible for humans to hear His speech, a number of people did hear it. No one saw Him with their eyes in this world, by consensus among the Muslim scholars. But they have two opinions as to whether the Prophet (ﷺ) saw Him. The majority of scholars and the leading ones among them held that he did not see Allah with his eyes, as established by the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Since Khullah (close friendship) was possible, Allah took Abraham as a close friend, and He also took Muhammad as a close friend. It is related in the "Two Sahīh Collections”, through a number of chains of transmission, that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, Allah took me as a close friend as He took Abraham as a close friend. And if I were to take a close friend from the inhabitants of the earth, I would take Abu Bakr as a close friend. But your companion is the close friend of Allah, [72] referring to himself. Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (532), (2383).
The Seventh Way: Their statement: If immaterial beings, like the Holy Spirit and others, can only appear in material beings, the word of Allah by which the immaterial beings were created appears in material beings.
We say to them: The appearance of immaterial beings in material beings is a general statement. If you mean that a man's soul appears in his body, a jinni can speak through the tongue of an epileptic person and the like, indeed this is not the topic we are addressing. But if you mean that Allah Almighty Himself indwells in humans, indeed this is the point of dispute. Where is the proof for this, since you only mentioned what proves the opposite?
The Eighth Way: That this issue is not established by reason or texts. No prophet ever stated that Allah indwells in humans, neither did any truthful person claim that the Lord indwelled in him. This can only be claimed by liars, like the Anti-Christ who will appear at the end of time and claim to be divine. Thereupon, Allah Almighty will send down Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messiah of guidance, and he will kill the Anti-Christ, who made the false claim of divinity, and he will point out that the Lord of the worlds does not indwell in humankind.
Since the indwelling of the divine nature in humans and its unity with them is a doctrine over which many groups among the children of Adam went astray, including the Christians and others, and as the Anti-Christ will perform great supernatural acts, the like of which were cited by the Christians as a proof for the divinity of the Messiah, the Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned among the signs of the Anti-Christ's falsehood a number of clear matters with which there is no need to demonstrate the points of dispute in which a lot of people went astray. Many people, or rather most people, get dazzled by supernatural acts so much that they would believe the performer without considering whether his claim is true or false. If they believe that, they will also believe the Christians in their claim about the divinity of the Messiah and believe those who advocate unity and indwelling in some Shaykhs, or in some members of Prophet Muhammad's household, or believe any other people of falsehood and immorality.
The Ninth Way: Their statement: "The word of Allah by which the immaterial beings were created appears in material beings."
We say to them: The word of Allah which they claimed to have appeared in the Messiah - Is it the speech of Allah which is His attribute, or it is His speaking Essence, or both of them combined? If you say: The very speech appeared in him. This may denote one of two things:
If it is intended to mean that Allah sent down His speech to the Messiah as He sent it down to other messengers, this is true, and it is unanimously accepted by the people of faith and mentioned in the Qur’an.
And if it is intended to mean that the speech of Allah departed from His Essence and indwelled in the Messiah or anyone else, this is false. This, however, does not avail the Christians, for they believe that the Messiah is a god, who he created the heavens and the earth, and that he is the son of Adam and the creator of Adam, and the son of Mary and the creator of Mary: He is her son with his human nature and her creator with his divine nature.
If, by the appearance of the word, they mean the appearance of the Essence of Allah or the appearance of His Essence and His word in the material being, namely the human, this is also intended to mean the appearance of His light in the hearts of the believers, as Allah Almighty says: {Allah is the Light of the heavens and earth} To His words: {like a shining star.} [Surat an-Nūr: 35] As Allah appeared in Tūr Sinai, from Seir, and from Mount Paran, and as He manifested Himself to Abraham, as mentioned in the Torah, this does not apply to the Messiah exclusively, but to him and to others.
But if they mean that the Essence of the Lord indwelled in the Messiah, or in anyone else, this is the point of dispute here. Where is their proof for the possibility of that, let alone its occurrence? Nonetheless, the majority of rational people, including the adherents of the religions and others, say that this is not real, and even impossible.
The Tenth Way: Their statement: "The word of Allah by which the immaterial beings were created appears in material beings." It is a false statement, for when the divine matters appear, if it is possible for them to appear, they should more appropriately appear in the immaterial beings rather than the material ones. The angels come down with the revelation to the prophets (peace be upon them). They receive Allah's speech from Him and descend with it to the prophets (peace be upon them). Thus, the speech of Allah reaches the angels before it reaches the humans. They are the intermediaries, as Allah Almighty says: {or by sending an angel-messenger to reveal what He wills by His permission.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 51]
Allah Almighty strengthened His human messengers so that they could be able to receive the revelation from the angels, who would sometimes come to them in a non-human form and at other times in the human form. So, it was more appropriate for the divine matters to appear in and reach the immaterial beings than to appear in and reach the material ones. If it was valid for the Almighty Lord to unite with and indwell in any living being, it would be more appropriate for Him to unite with and indwell in anyone of the angels than to do so with any human being.
The Eleventh Way: That the Messiah's human nature that is united with him, according to them, is the body and soul together. So, the Messiah had a body and a soul like all other people, and the divine nature, in their belief, united with him. Thus, it is to them a name that refers to a human body and soul and to the divine nature. Hence, the divine nature, in their view, is united with an immaterial thing (the soul), and a material one (the body); so, it did not appear in a material thing only. And were it not for the immaterial thing accompanying the material one, i.e., the soul, the material thing would not have any merit or honor.
The Twelfth Way: That they liken the union of the divine nature uniting with the human one to the union of the soul uniting with the body, just as they likened here His appearance in him and the appearance of the soul in the body. So, it becomes known that the pains of the body hurt the soul and the pains of the soul hurt the body. This entails that when the human nature was crucified and suffered severe pains, the divine nature was also in suffering and pain.
I talked to a Christian about this, and he said to me: The soul is simple, i.e., it suffers no pain.
I said to him: Then, what do you say about the souls of the disbelievers after death: Will they be in bliss or torment?
He replied: They will be in torment.
I said: So, it is known that the departed soul from the body finds bliss or torment. So, if you draw resemblance between the divine nature in the human one and the soul in the body, it follows that it feels pain if the human nature suffers pain, as the soul suffers pain due to the pain of the body. As a result, he and others acknowledged the necessity of this.
The Thirteenth Way: Their statement: "Immaterial things only appear in material ones. So, the word of Allah only appears in a material thing." It is a corrupt synthesis that gives no meaningful indication. It would give such an indication, if they could point out that every immaterial thing can only appear in a material one and does not appear in anything else, so that it is said: Therefore, Allah appeared in a material thing and did not appear in an immaterial one. Otherwise, if it is said that He neither indwells in immaterial things nor material ones or that He indwells in both of them, this disproves their statement about the necessity of Allah indwelling in the material Messiah and not in the immaterial things. They did not form this argument in a productive way, neither did they produce proof that supports its reasoning. They have presented nothing but fallacies that can only spread among ignorant people who imitate them.
That the soul indwells in the body does not necessitate that everything can indwell in the body. This is a void claim. The souls of people appear in their bodies and do not appear in the bodies of animals or jinn. And the angels can appear in a human form, and so can the jinn, whereas the human being cannot appear in a non-human form. So, what proof exists in their speech that the Lord indwells in the material human beings and does not indwell in the immaterial things?!
They began to form an argument for the incarnation of the creating word of Allah, saying: "As for the incarnation of the creating word of Allah in a created human and their birth together - that's the word along with the human nature - indeed Allah did not speak to any of the prophets except through revelation or from behind a veil." What they mentioned offers no indication, categorical or conjectural, that the creating word of Allah incarnated in the human nature and was born along with it.
The Fourteenth Way: That they said: "As for the incarnation of the creating word of Allah." And they also said: "The word of Allah by which the immaterial beings were created." They sometimes regard it as a creator and some other times as a means of creation. It is well known that the Creator is not a means of creation, and a means of creation is not the Creator. If the word was a creator, then it created things, not that the things were created by it; and if the things were created by it, then it did not create the things, but they were created by means of it.
If they said: That the things were created by it means that when Allah wills something, He only says to it, "Be", and it is, this would be true; they, however, regard it as a creator, though they also say what contradicts this.
The Fifteenth Way: That we say to them: If Allah did not speak to human beings except through revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending an angel-messenger to reveal what He wills by His permission, then His speaking to humans through revelation or from behind a veil, as He spoke to Moses, or by sending an angel, as He sent angels, is either sufficient for the fulfillment of the Lord's objective in sending the message to His servants or not sufficient, and He should Himself indwell in human beings.
If this was sufficient, then the Messiah would possibly be like others, and Allah would reveal to him or send to him an angel who would reveal to him what Allah wills by His permission, or He would speak to him from behind a veil, as He spoke to Moses. In that case, He would not need to unite with a created human being.
But if the [speaking] was insufficient, then He should unite with all the prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, as He united with the Messiah. This is clarified by:
The Sixteenth Way: It is well known that the prophets who came before the Messiah are better than the ordinary Christians who came after the Messiah and better than the Jews who rejected the Messiah.
If the Lord, out of His grace, united with the Messiah and talked to His servants by Himself, uniting with the Messiah and treating his material body as a veil, and spoke to the Jews who rejected the Messiah and the ordinary Christians and all those the Messiah spoke to, then there would be greater reason for Him to speak to the prophets and the righteous people who were better than these ones, uniting, for example, with Abraham and speaking to Isaac, Jacob, and Lot, veiling Himself within the body of Abraham, His intimate friend. Or He would possibly unite with Jacob and speak to his children or others, veiling Himself in Jacob's body, or unite with Moses ibn ‘Imrān and speak to Aaron and Joshua ibn Nun, and others, veiling Himself in the body of Moses. As Allah Almighty did not do this, either because of its impossibility, or because His glory and wisdom are far exalted above that, while there is no need for it, then it becomes known that He would not do this with the Messiah with greater reason.
The Seventeenth Way: If it was possible for Him to unite with a human being, then it would be more appropriate for Him to unite with one of the angels. Thus, it would be more reasonable for Him to unite with Gabriel, whom He sent to the prophets, than to unite with a human who would speak to the Jews and the ordinary Christians.
They said: "Therefore, He appeared in Jesus, the son of Mary, for man is the noblest among what Allah created. Hence, He addressed humankind and they witnessed from Him what they witnessed."
We say to them: If you claim that He appeared in Jesus as He appeared in Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad (peace be upon them), and as He appears in His houses which He ordered to raise up and where His Name is mentioned, through the appearance of His light and knowledge, the mention of His names, the worship of Him, and so on, without His Essence indwelling in or uniting with humans, then this is something common among the Messiah and others; it does not pertain to the Messiah exclusively. This may also be called indwelling. In their belief, Allah indwells in the righteous people, as mentioned in some of their divine books, like in the Psalms, Psalm 4, wherein David (peace be upon him) said in his private communication with his Lord: "Let those who rely upon You be joyful forever and rejoice, and You indwell in them and they become proud." [73] See: Book of Psalms (5: 12).
He mentioned that Allah indwells in the righteous people referred to. So, it becomes known that this does not particularly apply to the Messiah. This does not mean, by consensus among them and among the Muslims, that the Essence of Allah Himself unites with humans, with the divine nature and the human nature becoming mixed like fire and iron, water and milk, and other things which they give examples therewith that demonstrate unity. Rather, this means indwelling of belief in Him, His knowledge and love, His remembrance and worship, and His light and guidance.
This may be expressed by the indwelling of the scientific example, as Allah Almighty says: {It is He Who is God in the heaven.} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 84] Allah Almighty also says: {He is Allah in the heavens and on earth.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 3] {To Him belongs the most sublime similitude in the heavens and earth.} [Surat ar-Rūm: 27] To Allah Almighty belongs the most sublime similitude in the hearts of the inhabitants of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth.
In this respect, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Allah says: I am with My slave when he remembers Me and his lips move by mention of Me." [74] He informed that his lips move by mention of Him, i.e., by His name. Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (815).
Allah Almighty also said in an authentic Hadīth: "O My slave, I was ill, but you did not visit Me." He will respond: "O Lord, how could I visit You and You are the Lord of the worlds?" Allah will say: "Did you not know that My servant so-and-so was ill? Do you not know that if you had visited him, you would have found Me with him?" [75] Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2569).
He said, "you would have found Me with him" and did not say: you would have found Me him. "With him" means in his heart. And what is in his heart is: the scientific example.
Allah Almighty also said: "O My slave, I asked you for food, but you did not feed Me." He will respond: "O Lord, how could I feed You and You are the Lord of the worlds?" He will say: "Did you not know that My servant so-and-so was hungry, but you did not feed him? Do you not know that if you had fed him, you would have found it (its reward) with Me?" [76] He did not say: You would have found that I had eaten it. Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2569).
In another authentic Hadīth, narrated by Al-Bukhāri, Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Allah Almighty says: 'Whoever shows enmity to a pious worshiper of Mine, I declare war against him. My slave does not draw near to Me with anything dearer to Me than what I have made obligatory for him. My slave continues to draw near to Me by doing supererogatory deeds until I love him. When I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks.'" [77] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (6502).
This Hadīth may be cited as an argument by those who advocate general indwelling, general unity, or the unity of existence, and it may also be cited by those who advocate specific indwelling, specific unity, and specific unity of existence, such as people who are like the Christians.
The Hadīth, however, constitutes an argument against both groups, for He said: "Whoever shows enmity to a pious worshiper of Mine, I declare war against him." Thus, He affirmed three things: a pious worshiper of His, an enemy to His pious worshiper, and the distinction between Him, His pious worshiper, and the enemy of His pious worshiper, saying: "Whoever shows enmity to a pious worshiper of Mine, I declare war against him." This indicates that His pious worshiper is one who takes Him as an ally, loving what He loves, hating what He hates, taking as allies those He takes as allies, and showing enmity towards those He takes as enemies. As a result, the Lord declares war on those who show enmity towards him, deeming them as enemies to Allah.
Then, Allah Almighty said: "My slave does not draw near to Me with anything dearer to Me than what I have made obligatory for him." So, Allah made a distinction between the slave who draws near and the Lord to whom nearness is sought. Then, He said: "My slave continues to draw near to Me by doing supererogatory deeds until I love him." He pointed out that He loves him after he draws near to Him by doing supererogatory and obligatory deeds.
Then, He said: "When I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks." According to the advocates of general indwelling and unity, or the unity of existence: He is his chest, back, head, and hair, and He is everything or in everything, before and after drawing near to Him. And according to the advocates of specific indwelling, Allah and the slave became like fire and iron, and water and milk, not particularly pertaining to the means of discernment and action.
The term "indwelling" may be used to refer to a correct meaning and may be used to intend a wrong one.
Also, the word "indwelling" is sometimes intended to mean the indwelling of the very thing and sometimes the indwelling of its knowledge, love, and scientific example, as previously mentioned.
It is stated in their prophecies [78] that Allah Almighty indwelled in righteous people other than the Messiah. This is not intended to mean that the Essence of the Lord indwelled in them. Rather, this is similar to saying: So-and-so is residing in my heart; he is dwelling in my heart; he is in my innermost being and lying deep in my heart, and so on. However, what indwelled in him is his scientific example. If this is so, it is well known that if a place is free from those who know Allah and worship Him, it will be devoid of Allah's remembrance, and His worship and knowledge will not indwell therein. But if there comes to the place those who know Allah and worship and mention Him, His remembrance and belief in Him will appear therein, and the belief in Allah and His worship and remembrance will indwell in this place, the house of Allah Almighty. So, it is said: Allah is in this place, and He indwells therein. i.e., the Books of the Prophets in the Old Testament.
But if you mean by "He appeared in Jesus", with the Messiah or others, indeed this is a mere claim supported by no proof, in the earlier or later times. As for humans being the noblest of what Allah created - if they are fitting for Allah's indwelling in them - this is not exclusively to the Messiah, for evidence has been presented that some other prophets are more meritorious than Jesus (peace be upon him), such as Abraham and Muhammad (peace be upon both of them), whom Allah took as intimate friends, and there is no rank higher than intimate friendship. So, if Allah was to indwell in the noblest of what He created, namely humankind, He would definitely indwell in the noblest of this kind; that's Abraham and Muhammad (peace be upon both of them). They have no proof that the body taken out of Mary, if it did not unite with the divine nature, is better than Abraham and Moses.
If they argue that he did not commit sin, indeed John, the son of Zechariah, did not commit sin either. Besides, whoever commits a sin and then repents becomes a better person after repentance than he was before the commission of the sin and better than one who has not committed that sin. Abraham and Moses are better than John, whom they call "John the Baptist".
As for their statement: "Hence, He addressed humankind." The one who addressed humankind was Jesus, the son of Mary. People heard his voice, not any other voice. When a jinn indwells in a human being and speaks through his tongue, it becomes clear to those around that this is not the voice of the human being, and the jinn produces speech, that when people hear it, they know that it does not belong to human beings.
People did not hear from the Messiah except what would usually be heard from messengers like him. If a jinni or an angel had spoken through the human nature, this would have been clear, and it would have been known that this is not the human being. Then, what if the speaker was the Lord of the Worlds?! If this was true, it would be far more apparent than the speech of an angel or a jinni through the tongue of a human being.
As for the miracles they witnessed at the hands of the Messiah (peace be upon him), they also witnessed similar and greater miracles from other than him, who also brought the dead back to life and talked about the unseen more than he did. Besides, the miracles of Moses are greater and more numerous than his miracles. The appearance of miracles at his hands indicates his prophethood and messenger-ship, as the miracles of others pointed to their prophethood and messenger-ship; they do not indicate his divinity.
When the Anti-Christ will claim to be divine, the supernatural acts performed at his hands will not be evidence for his claim, for claiming divinity is something impossible. Indeed, the appearance of wonders does not prove impossible things.
[The Christians' use of texts for argument]
They said: "Allah said through the mouths of the prophets and messengers, who foretold about his birth from Mary, the virgin and chaste, and about all his actions which he did on earth and his ascension to heaven. All these prophecies are found with the Jews, and they acknowledge them and recite them in their churches not denying a single word thereof.
They said: And we will cite some of the statements of the prophets who foretold regarding the Messiah and his descent to earth." [79] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
We say to them: All of this is not disputed by the Muslims, for there is no doubt that he was born from the virgin and chaste Mary, who was not touched by any man whatsoever. Allah caused miracles to appear at his hands, and that he ascended to the heaven, as revealed by Allah in His Book.
If this was stated by the prophets in their books which are found with the Jews, then it is undeniable, even if the Jews interpret them as referring to other than the Messiah, just as the prophets' books contain prophecies about Muhammad (ﷺ), which are true, even if those who disbelieve in him from among the People of the Book interpret that as referring to other than him.
[The first text]:
They said: "Ezra the Priest said as Nebuchadnezzar took them as captives to the land of Babylonia: 'The Messiah will come and deliver the peoples and nations.' By the end of the specified period, Jesus Christ came." [80] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Ezra (2: 1).
We say to them: As for what Ezra the Priest said, there is nothing in it other than that he informs that the Messiah will come and save peoples and nations, and this is something the Muslims do not dispute. They acknowledge what Allah says in His Book about the coming of the Messiah (peace be upon him) and Allah’s salvation through him of all peoples and nations who believed in him until Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent.
So, whoever believed in the Messiah and followed what was revealed to him without distortion or alteration, Allah saved them through the Messiah from the evil of this world and the Hereafter, just as Allah Almighty saved through Moses those who followed him from among the children of Israel.
Whoever distorts and alters does not follow the Messiah, and whoever rejects Muhammad (ﷺ) is like one who rejects the Messiah after he believed in Moses (peace be upon him).
But this text and others like it constitute an argument against the Jews, who interpret this as saying that this is not the Messiah, the son of Mary, but rather an awaited Messiah. They are waiting for the Anti-Christ, the Messiah of delusion, as the Jews will follow him, and the Muslims will kill them along with him. "Until the trees and the stones will say: O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." [81] Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2921).
[The second text]:
They said: "And Prophet Jeremiah said about his birth at that time: 'A son of David will arise, and he is the illumination of light, who will possess the kingdom, teach and explain, and establish the truth and justice in the land, and save those who believed in him from among the Jews and the children of Israel, as well as others, and Jerusalem will remain without a fighter, and he will be called God.'" [82] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Jeremiah (23: 5).
He said "a son of David" because Mary was a descendant of David. That is why he said: "A son of David will arise."
As for his statement: "and he will be called God,"
this indicates that he is not Allah, the Lord of the worlds. But the word “God” is a name by which he was called, just as Moses was named a god for Pharaoh in the Torah. If he were God, the Lord of the worlds, he would be far exalted above the statement: "and he will be called God." This is because Allah Almighty should not be defined this way, and it should not be said about Him: Allah is called God. Instead, it would have been said: "Allah will come by Himself and appear." And it was said: "who will possess the kingdom"; whereas the Lord of the worlds is, and will always be, the Possessor of the kingdom - Glory be to Him.
Also, he said: "A son of David will arise, and he is the illumination of light." It is well known that the son who is from the descendants of David, whose mother’s name is Mary, is of human nature only; for the divine nature is not a descendant of humans, and it has become clear that this human nature, who is the son of David, is called "God". So, it has become known that this is a name for the created human nature, not for God, the Creator.
Moreover, he said: "who is the illumination of light." He did not describe him as the light itself, but the illumination of light. Indeed, Allah Almighty enlightens every light. How then can He be the illumination of light? Allah Almighty called Muhammad (ﷺ) an illuminating lamp, and he was not thus a creator. So, what if he was called the illumination of light?
Furthermore, David only referred to the one who will arise as the son of David, and the son of David is a created being. He attributed this action to this created being. If this had been Allah, the Lord of the worlds, who had united with the human nature, Jeremiah and the other prophets would have pointed that out in a categorical manner that leaves no excuse for ignorance, and they would not have deemed it sufficient to use these words, which are either explicit or apparent in contradicting this, or they overall do not indicate this. It is well known that it is usual and possible for them to talk about the coming of any one of the prophets. But, as they do this, they mention prophecies and clear evidence that removes suspicion. As for telling about the coming of the Lord Himself and His indwelling in and unity with a human nature, this is not possible, as held by most rational people among the children of Adam, who say: Clear reasoning indicates its impossibility; or it is possible, as stated by some people, and in such a case its possibility would be hidden to most rational people, which is something unusual.
And the coming of the Lord Himself is greater than the coming of every messenger and prophet, especially if His coming is by uniting with a human being at whose hands no signs related to divinity appeared. Indeed, nothing appeared at his hands except similar to what appeared at the hands of other prophets or greater than it.
When Allah Almighty was speaking to Moses, Moses did not see Him, and He did not unite neither with Moses nor with anyone else. Nonetheless, He showed such signs related to that and to the prophethood of Moses the like of which or even close did not appear at the hands of the Messiah.
If He Himself had united with a human being, the prophets would have talked about that in a clear and explicit manner not subject to interpretations, and the Lord would have demonstrated that through such signs that did not appear at the hands of any messenger or prophet. So, what about if the prophets did not make any explicit statement regarding this? Rather, all the explicit texts indicate that the Messiah is a created being, and no sign appeared that indicated otherwise. In fact, all signs point to the prophethood of the Messiah.
[The third text]:
They said: "And Prophet Zechariah said: 'Rejoice, O house of Zion, for I will come to you and indwell in you and appear.' Allah said: 'Many nations will believe in Allah on that day, and they will be one people for Him. He and they will indwell in you, and you will know that I am Almighty Allah Who indwells in you, and Allah will take the kingdom from Judah on that day, and reign over them forever.'" [83] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Zechariah (2: 14-16).
We say: Something like this was mentioned in their books regarding Abraham and other prophets: that Allah revealed Himself to him and appeared to Him - in addition to similar phrases. This, however, did not indicate that He indwelled in him and united with him.
The same can be said about His coming. He did not say: "I will indwell in the Messiah and unite with him." Rather, He said about the house of Zion, "I will come to you and indwell in you,", as He made similar statements elsewhere in their books, and they did not point to His indwelling in humans.
Likewise, He did not mean by His statement "and you will know that I am Almighty Allah Who indwells in you" that He would indwell in the Messiah, for the Messiah did not reside in Jerusalem while he was powerful. Rather, he entered it while he was defeated and vanquished so much that he was taken and crucified, or his lookalike was crucified. [84] When knowledge of Allah and belief in Him reside in the hearts, they find tranquility and peace. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) intended to get down to their level of discourse, i.e., as you believe he was crucified, whereas the author's belief that the Messiah was not crucified is well known.
As the religion of the Messiah (peace be upon him) emerged in Jerusalem, after he was raised to heaven, belief in Allah and knowledge about Him appeared there in a way not seen before.
It is concluded from the foregoing that the previous prophecies and divine scriptures, like the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the rest of the prophets' books, did not single out the Messiah with anything entailing that he was exclusively endowed with the divine nature uniting with him and indwelling in him, as held by the Christians. In fact, they did not ascribe to him anything special different from what Muhammad (ﷺ) ascribed to him in the verse that reads: {The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171]
The previous books of the prophets and the rest of the prophecies are consistent with what Muhammad (ﷺ) stated. They confirm one another. The Christians use the prophets' statements as evidence for the Messiah's divinity - there could also be similar statements pertaining to other than the Messiah. So, ascribing divinity to the Messiah in particular to the exclusion of others is invalid, such as the name of the son and the Messiah, and like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in him, and like calling him a god, and like the appearance of the Lord or His indwelling in him, or His staying in him or in his place. These words and the like exist in their books with regard to prophets other than the Messiah, but they were not thus considered gods.
[The fourth text]:
They said: "And he said in the third book of the Books of Kings: 'Now, O Lord, God of Israel, let your words be fulfilled to David, because they should truly be; that Allah will dwell with people on earth. Listen, O peoples, all of you, and let the earth and everyone in it listen, and the Lord will be a Witness over it from His holy House, and He will come out of His place, and He will descend and tread on the east of the earth regarding the sin of all of the children of Jacob.'" [85] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: First Book of Kings (8: 26).
We say: This book needs to be proven that the one who spoke in it was a prophet, and that its words were revised and translated into Arabic in a correct and consistent way. Thereafter, let there be said regarding it what is said about the similar words existing in their books.
Nothing in these words indicates that Allah united with the Messiah, for his statement: "Allah will dwell with people on earth." does not point to the Messiah. Indeed, the Messiah did not dwell with people on earth. Rather, when he proclaimed the call, he did not stay on earth except for a little while, and he did not reside in a specific place. Before that, he did not proclaim the call of prophethood, let alone divinity. After that, he was raised to the heaven and did not dwell with people on earth.
Also, they said: His dwelling is His appearance in the Messiah (peace be upon him).
We say to them: As for the possible and reasonable appearance, like the appearance of His knowledge, love, and light, and remembrance and worship of Him, there is no distinction in that between the Messiah and others. In that case, nothing in these words indicates that this dwelling was in the Messiah in particular; if it happened to the Messiah, this is not one of his distinctive merits. Besides, His appearance in him or the indwelling of His knowledge, love, and scientific example has nothing that requires Allah's unity with him.
As for his statement: "and the Lord will be a Witness over it."
We say: Firstly, Allah's testimony over His servants does not entail His indwelling in or unity with some of His created beings. Indeed, He is a Witness over His servants with regard to their deeds, as Allah Almighty says: {and Allah is a Witness to all what they do.} [Surat Yūnus: 46] The text literally reads: "and let the earth and everyone in it listen, and the Lord will be a Witness over it." Similarly, in the Torah, when Moses addressed the children of Israel, he called for Allah as a Witness over them, and also Muhammad (ﷺ) used to say to his Ummah after conveying the message: "Have I conveyed the message?" They would say: "Yes." Thereupon, he would say: "O Allah, bear witness." [86] Accordingly, this does not refer to the Messiah as being Allah. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (1741) and Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (1679).
It may also be said: It does not indicate that the meaning intended here by the word "the Lord" is Allah, yet the word "the Lord" means: the obeyed master. He used both words, saying "Allah will dwell with people," and then saying: "the Lord will be a Witness over it." The prophets will be witnesses over their communities, as the Messiah is quoted in the Qur’an as saying: {I was witness over them as long as I was among them. But when You took me up, You Yourself were the Watcher over them.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 117] And Allah Almighty says: {Indeed, We have sent to you a Messenger to be a witness over you, just as We sent to Pharaoh a messenger.} [Surat al-Muzzammil: 15] In that case, the witness lord would be the Messiah, who is the human nature, the one who came from Jerusalem, came out of His place, and descended and trod the earth regarding the sin of the children of Jacob. When they erred and changed, Allah sent them the Messiah (peace be upon him) inviting them to worship Allah alone and obey Him. So, whoever believes in Him will be happy and deserving of reward, and whoever disbelieves in Him will be miserable and deserving of punishment.
[The fifth text]:
They said: "And Prophet Micah said: 'And you, O Bethlehem, the village of Judah, out of you will come forth for me a ruler who will take care of my people, Israel, and he was before the world came to being, but he does not appear except in the days in which the mother gives birth to him, and his authority extends from the ends of the earth to its ends." [87] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Micah (5: 1).
The response: What they mention about the prophets (peace be upon them) generally constitutes an argument against them, rather than for them. Likewise, what they mentioned about the Messiah regarding the trinity is an argument against them, rather than for them. Similarly, if we properly consider most of the prophets' statements which the people of innovations and misguidance cite as arguments, we will find that they constitute an argument against them, rather than for them. Indeed, the prophets' words are guidance and clarification, and they are infallible persons, who would not say anything untrue.
If anyone cites their statements as an argument for something wrong, these statements must demonstrate that they intended what is right, not wrong. An example is His statement in this prophecy: "out of you will come forth for me a ruler." This clearly indicates that the one who will come out is a ruler for Allah, not Allah Himself; rather, he is a ruler for Him like all the other rulers for Allah, and these are the obeyed messengers and prophets, such as David and Moses. Therefore, He said: "who will take care of my people, Israel." If He had been that one, He would have been the caretaker of His own people.
As for His statement, "and he was before the world came to being", this is similar to Prophet Muhammad's (ﷺ) statement in a Hadīth through Maysarat al-Fajr, as he was asked: "O Messenger of Allah, when did you become a prophet?" He said: "While Adam was between being soul and body." [88] In another version: "When were you decreed as a prophet?" He said: "While Adam was between being soul and body." [89] Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4231). Narrated by Ad-Diyā’ al-Maqdisi in "Al-Ahādīth Al-Mukhtārah Collection" no. (123).
What he (ﷺ) meant is that Allah wrote and manifested his prophethood and mentioned his name. That is why He made that at that time after the creation of Adam’s body and before the soul was breathed into him. This is just as the newborn’s livelihood, life, deeds, and whether he is miserable or happy, after the creation of his body and before the soul is breathed into him.
Similar is the statement about the Messiah: "He is before the world came to being." He was written and mentioned before the world existed.
He said, "before the world came to being" and did not say that he is timeless and eternal like Allah, as the Christians say: He is the timeless attribute of Allah. Rather, he specified a time for that by saying: "before the world came to being." It is not appropriate to say about the Lord of the worlds "he was before the world came to being," for Allah Almighty is eternal and timeless, with no beginning for His existence. So, no time is set for the beginning, especially if what is meant by the world is its population by Adam and his children. The heavens and the earth may not be included in term "the world"; rather, they may be considered as part of the Hereafter, with the souls of the believers being in Paradise in the heavens, whereas the world refers to the life of this world.
Therefore, he said: "but he does not appear except in the days in which the mother gives birth to him, as the other prophets appear after their mothers give birth to them." The mother gave birth to the human person, whereas the divine person, according to them, was begotten by the eternal and timeless God. If they say that she gave birth to the divine person along with the human one, indeed this is wrong, for numerous reasons.
[The sixth text]:
They said: "And Prophet Isaiah said: 'Behold, the virgin is pregnant and gives birth to a son, and his name is Emmanuel.' Emmanuel: a Hebrew word which means in Arabic: 'Our God is with us.' So, the Prophet testified that Mary gave birth to both the divine person united with the human one." [90] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Isaiah (7: 14).
We say: Nothing in this speech indicates that Mary gave birth to the divine person united with the human one, or that she gave birth to the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Rather, the speech indicates that the born one is not the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He said, "she gives birth to a son," using an indefinite article, as it is generally said regarding any woman: She gave birth to a son. This indicates that he is merely one among other sons, not the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
Then, he said: "and his name is Emmanuel." This indicates that this is a name chosen for him as people choose proper names for their children or attributes by which they name them. Some of these names would be improvised by them, and some others were phrases they related. Hence, many among the People of the Book call their sons Emmanuel.
Some of them say that the virgin here refers to some other woman than Mary, and they related a story in this connection. Some others say that it refers to Mary, and according to this view, there is one of the two possible intended meanings:
He either intended to say that our God is with us by support and victory, for the children of Israel had been forsaken due to their alteration, and when the Messiah (peace be upon him) was sent with the truth, Allah was with those who followed him. The Messiah himself did not remain among them, but he was raised to heaven. However, Allah was with those who followed him by victory and support - as Allah Almighty says: {We then supported those who believed against their enemies, so they prevailed.} [Surat as-Saff: 14] Allah Almighty also says: {and I will make those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] This is more likely to be correct.
Or the Messiah was called a god, as they say: Moses was called "the god of Pharaoh"; i.e., he was the one who was in charge of calling him and was given power over him.
Some of them altered the meaning of this word, saying that it means: Allah is with us. Their scholars who responded to them said: It should be said to them: Is this the one who said: "I am the Lord and there is no god but Me. I cause death and give life"? Or is he the one who said to Allah: "Indeed, You alone are the true God, and the One Who sent Jesus Christ"? If the former is false, and the latter is affirmed by the Gospel, then it is incumbent to believe the Gospel and reject he who wrote in the Gospel that "Emmanuel" means: "Allah is with us." Rather, "Emmanuel" means: "A god is with us." This name does not exclusively refer to the Messiah. Rather, Emmanuel is a name used by the Christians and by the Jews before them.
This exists in our present time today. Some among the People of the Book are named Emmanuel, which means: one of high status. He said: Likewise, most Syriacs name their sons "Emmanuel".
I say: It is well known that Allah is with the righteous, the good doers, and the just people with guidance, victory, and support. When we supplicate for someone, we usually say: May Allah be with you. So, if someone is named "Allah is with you," this is to seek the blessing denoted by the meaning of this name. And if it is said that the Messiah is named "Allah is with us" or "our God is with us", and the like, this indicates that Allah is with those who followed the Messiah and believed in him; thus, Allah will be guiding, supporting, and giving them victory.
[The Christians' use of consensus for argument]
They said: "Similar to this statement are numerous statements in the revealed books of Allah by the tongues of the prophets and messengers, according to the books of all Christians who speak different languages, scattered across the world's seven continents, and hold onto the religion of Christianity: the same statement and the same text. They received it from the disciples as they warned them and dissuaded them from idol worship to the knowledge of Allah Almighty. Then, they delivered it to every community in their own language; and it is in its same form to this day." [91] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
[92] The response to this comprises a number of aspects: Marginal remark/ The distortion in the Christians' books is ascertained.
The First Aspect: The opinion regarding all the other texts they cite has been presented earlier, and some of the Christian scholars whom Allah guided discussed this issue and pointed out their distortion of the meanings of the books at their hands. They mentioned some texts from their books that explicitly tell that the Messiah is a slave of Allah, and he is not Allah. This shows the falsity of their view and how they abandoned the definite verses and followed the ambiguous ones. Therefore, Allah Almighty says about them: {Those with deviant hearts follow the ambiguous verses, seeking discord and seeking their [false] interpretation. But no one knows their [true] interpretation except Allah. And those who are well-grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it. It is all from our Lord." None will take heed except people of understanding.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 7]
This is similar to the Messiah's statement when he was asked about knowing the Hour; he said: "No man knows it, and neither do the angels in the heaven nor the son - except for the Father alone." [93] See: The Gospel of Matthew (24: 36).
So, he negated from himself the knowledge of the Hour, which indicates two things: The name "the son" refers to the human person, apart from the divine one, for it is not valid to negate knowledge of the Hour from the divine person. It also indicates that the son did not know what Allah knows, which disproves their view about the unity. If the unity was true, as they allege, the son would know what Allah knows and be able to do what Allah is able to do, for he, according to them, is Allah, and the human person is not distinguishable from the divine one, and the Messiah is described as being knowledgeable and able and that he gives life and causes death.
The Messiah said to his students: "Believe in Allah and believe in me." He also said: "Whoever believes in me does not believe in me alone, but also in the One Who sent me." [94] See: The Gospel of John (12: 44).
They mention that the Messiah (peace be upon him) cried out to Allah, saying: "My God, my God, look. Why have You abandoned me? You were far from saving me." [95] See: The Gospel of Matthew (27: 46).
[96] The Second Aspect: their statement that "they received these books that are at their hands, including the Torah, the Gospel, and the other scriptures from the disciples, each community in their language, and they are in the same form." [97] This is a statement for whose veracity they offered no proof. Rather, they made a bare claim. Such a text, if not established by mass transmission, may not be cited as an argument in scientific issues, especially if it is said in the third aspect [98] that this is an apparent lie. There are many languages whose speakers do not have an old Gospel. One of these is the Arabic language. Christian Arabs existed in a substantial number before Islam, and no Arabic Torah, Gospel, or any other scripture was known at the time except those which were translated into Arabic from the Hebrew, Roman, and Syriac copies. We ask them: Where are these Arabic books from the time of the disciples? And who saw them? If they happened to have existed in Arabic, still these Arabic copies at people's hands today were translated from the books at their hands. In that case, their veracity cannot be ascertained unless the veracity of the translation is ascertained, and they are authentically transmitted from the Messiah (peace be upon him). This also applies to all other languages. Marginal remark/ There is no evidence that supports their claim. Marginal remark/ The texts were not transmitted from the disciples, but from the Gospels written after the Messiah. Marginal remark/ The falsity of this claim
The Fourth Aspect: The Torah and the scriptures that were transmitted from the copies of the Jews and the Gospels are four, which were written after the time of the Messiah (peace be upon him). Two of those who wrote them did not see the Messiah, namely Luke and Mark. The two others - John and Matthew - did see him.
There are numerous copies from the four persons, and what is conveyed by four persons should not be regarded as mass-transmitted and well-known. If they existed in many more languages, this indeed happened after the four persons. It is not that those who heard them from the Messiah (peace be upon him) spoke seventy-two languages. No one said that, and no rational person would say it. The disciples were twelve, not seventy-two. If it is said that seventy-two people transmitted them, indeed they transmitted them from those disciples who conveyed these books to them, and they attribute their transmission to the four persons.
[99] The Fifth Aspect: That the disciples were not infallible. Anyone of them might err in some of what he transmitted. And regarding their reported supernatural acts, some people deny them, and some others believe them. Anyway, they do not indicate that they were infallible, except if it is established that they claimed to be prophets and performed miracles to prove their prophethood. This was not the case. Indeed, if some amazing events or wonders happen to righteous people, they do not prove that they are infallible people, like the prophets. Rather, they may commit errors, despite their established unusual incidents. The disciples, according to them, are not prophets, despite their calling them messengers. They were the messengers of the Messiah, not the messengers of Allah Almighty. Marginal remark/ The disciples were not infallible in what they transmitted.
[100] The Sixth Aspect: These books at their hands contain statements that contradict their view which are more numerous and explicit than the statements they cite as an argument for it. Hence, it is incumbent to adhere to definite and explicit statements and refer ambiguous ones to them, not vice versa. Marginal remark/ The contradiction in their statements
[101] The Seventh Aspect: If we assume that these books exist in the world in seventy-two languages, whether they are all authentically and correctly transmitted from the disciples, or most of them or many of them were translated from one language to another, it is well known that there are several copies in every language; and even if they were in one language, and there are plenty of copies across the world, none could categorically affirm that they all have the same text and the same words, as alleged by those people with regard to the seventy-two languages, as they said: "Similar to this statement are numerous statements in the revealed books of Allah by the tongues of the prophets and messengers, according to all Christians who speak different languages, scattered across the world's seven continents, holding onto the religion of Christianity: the same statement and the same text. They received it from the disciples as they warned them and dissuaded them from idol worship to the knowledge of Allah Almighty. Then, they delivered it to every community in their own language, and it remains in its same form to this day." Marginal remark/ Their claim cannot be verified
This statement contains several claims, and there are none of them whose advocate had any knowledge about what he said. This shows that those people uttered these words without knowledge, but out of ignorance and misguidance, as they usually do.
We say to them: Who collected all the copies in the world of the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and all the other twenty-four books in one language, like Arabic for example? And did he examine all the copies and find out that no copy differed from another in terms of any addition or omission?!
It is known that if this were possible, it could be said: Someone collected them and changed some of their words. They cannot claim that they remain unchanged. And if this was not possible, none could say: I know that all the copies of these books in the world's seven continents in that specific language are identical, let alone the seventy-two languages, and let alone someone to say: I know that these languages were all spoken by the disciples, and they remain with the same words uttered by them to this day.
It is known that if someone can collect copies of one book in all the fields of knowledge, like the books of medicine, mathematics, engineering, grammar, jurisprudence, and Hadīth, it will be easier to change some words in the copies than to compare the words of every copy with the words of the other similar copies. This usually cannot be done; rather, it is impossible or difficult to do, particularly if the comparison is made between two people - each one would convey to the other the words of his copy. Thus, the comparison would revolve around one source which is associated with nothing to prove its veracity, for both may err or lie altogether.
If the comparison was held between a number of people sufficient for attaining this knowledge, every copy in every language would need a large number of people, sufficient for attaining this knowledge, to attest to its words, and those specific people should attest to the words of every copy in every language. Moreover, people like them should attest to the words of the other copy and whether it is consistent with it, and those people, or the like of them, should attest to the fact that both copies are identical.
It is known that none did this and none could do it, even if all the Christian rulers and the scholars in their countries gathered to do this, they would not be able to do it. Some copies are with the Muslims, and some others are in countries where the Christians have no authority. Moreover, there could be copies in their countries whose owners did not reveal them.
Anyone of the Christians and others who testified that every copy of these books in the world is consistent with all the other copies is a false witness, who gave testimony about something he did not know, or rather he testified regarding something about which he knew that he was lying.
This also holds true if the testimony is given regarding the copies of any book whatsoever, for it is commonly known that the copies of a book usually differ from one another, with some of them having additions or omissions. Regarding the mass-transmitted Qur’an, its transmission did not rely upon the copies of mus'hafs, but on the accurate memorization of those who successively transmitted it. Therefore, if any copy is found to differ from the memorization of people, they correct it. Also, some copies of the mus'hafs may contain some errors that go unnoticed, though the mus'hafs written by the Companions were recorded by people with their font and style of writing, and thus it also became mass transmitted. Through mass transmission, they conveyed the words of the Qur’an by memorization and also the exact style of writing of the mus'hafs.
We do not claim that all the copies of the mus'haf are identical, neither do we claim that all those who memorize the Qur’an make no mistake. However, its words are mass transmitted through memorization and writing. So, whoever differs from that will be known by people to be wrong, for he opposes mass transmission. By contrast, the Christians did not memorize all these books by heart by receiving them from the disciples - through mass-transmitted memorization. Rather, none of them memorized all these books, not to mention that they were all memorized by people of mass transmission, and were memorized in every language by those who conducted mass transmission in that language.
This is something known to all Christians and others - that they were not all memorized in every language from the time of the disciples by such a number of people that would fulfill mass transmission, or even in any given time. Even after the Christians spread in excessive numbers across the seven continents of the world, there is almost none among them who has memorized all of them by heart as the Muslim children memorize the Qur’an. So, how could they be memorized every time by the people of mass transmission? And could they be memorized in every language of the seventy-two languages by the people of mass transmission?
As they only rely on these books, and are unable to know if all the copies in one language are identical, let alone in all the languages, then it becomes clear that their claim about these books to have the same text and the same words and all their copies are the same now and during the past times is a claim made by careless people who speak without knowledge or even speak about something they know to be false.
[102] The Eighth Aspect: If this was assumed to be possible, it would be deemed transmitted if it was not known to be a fabrication; so, what if it is known to be a fabrication? At the present time, there are copies of the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and other scriptures that are different and discrepant. The copies held by the Christians are different, and they also differ from the copies held by the Jews and the Samaritans in certain areas. Hence, if the Christians said that their copies are the correct ones, their claim would not be worthier than the claim by the Jews about the correctness of their copies. Rather, the attention paid by the Jews to the Torah is known to be greater than the Christians' attention. Marginal remark/ The difference between the books in the hands of the People of the Book disproves their claim that they were not distorted.
What they mentioned is not sufficient unless it is known that their copies are consistent with the copies of the Jews, and even the Samaritans; but this is not known.
If they say: If in case the texts transmitted by the Jews differ from the texts transmitted by the disciples, they should not be given attention, for they were infallible. This is based on the allegation about their infallibility, which is known to be wrong.
If the Christians say: We transmit them from the infallible disciples, the Jews will say: We transmit them from Moses who was infallible by consensus among the adherents of the religions, or from the infallible one by consensus among the Jews, the Christians, and many Muslims. The Torah, by consensus among all people, was taken from Moses, the son of ‘Imrān, who was infallible. Those who question some parts of it only do so because of the interruption of the chain of transmission during the period of Jerusalem's destruction, after which no inhabitant remained therein for more than seventy years. Some people say that some of its words were altered at that time, whereas some others say that only the words of some copies were altered, not all of them, with the altered copies spread among a lot of people, to the extent that they did not know other than those copies.
Moreover, prophets continued to come to the Children of Israel, one after another, until the Messiah came to them. After the Messiah, they were large in number, and it was not possible for them to collude together across the world over changing the copies of the Torah. By contrast, the Gospel was transmitted by four persons, and those who wrote the Torah, the Psalms, and the other scriptures from among the followers of the Messiah did write them from the copies held by the Jews.
If they say that they were infallible, this is deemed untrue by the Muslims as well as the Jews. If we assume, anyway, that it is true, indeed the Jews also transmitted them from an infallible one before those people. So, none can claim that the scriptures with the Christians were better transmitted from an infallible source than the books transmitted among the Jews. Rather, rational and impartial people would not doubt that the transmission of the Torah's letters is sounder than the transmission of the Gospel's letters.
This can be known in a variety of ways: The Torah was taken from an infallible source, by consensus among the adherents of the religions, and it was transmitted, before the Messiah, among the prophets and the Children of Israel in a better way than the transmission of the Gospel. Then, after the Messiah, it was transmitted by the Jews and the Christians.
if this is so, then if it is found that the copies of the scriptures with the Jews and the Samaritans differ from the copies with the Christians in some words, this will be evidence that the words of these books are not taken from the same text and that not all their words are mass transmitted - and Allah knows best.
[103] The Ninth Aspect: That all the sound texts in their books do not support their doctrine at all. Their utmost claim regarding them is the apparent indication. This is disputed so much that it is said: Rather, what they cite as arguments apparently contradict their views. Marginal remark/ The Christians have no conclusive proof that their books are free from distortion.
It is known that those who oppose the fundamentals of faith taken from the prophets are regarded as disbelievers, since knowledge cannot be attained by words with only a potential meaning. This shows that they have no knowledge from the prophets (peace be upon them), and this is the point of dispute.
[104] The Tenth Aspect: The most explicit among their texts concerning the trinity is his statement: "Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." [105] Upon this statement, they based their view on the trinity and affirmed the existence of three hypostases for Allah. Marginal remark/ The term "the three persons" is not part of the prophets' words. See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
The word ’Uqnooms (hypostases) was not uttered by any of the prophets or any of the disciples, by consensus among them; rather, they invented it. It is said to be a Roman word, which means: the origin.
Moreover, they sometimes say that the hypostasis of the son is the knowledge of Allah. At other times, they say it is the wisdom of Allah, and they also say it is the word of Allah, or the utterance of Allah.
Likewise, they sometimes say: The Holy Spirit is the life of Allah and at other times they say: It is the ability of Allah.
Their transmitted books from the prophets do not contain any attribute of Allah being called "son" or "holy spirit". It is not mentioned therein that any of the prophets called the knowledge of Allah or His wisdom or speech "a son" or the life of Allah or His ability "a holy spirit". In fact, "the Holy Spirit" in the prophets' words means something other than the life of Allah, and it is also used to mean an angel of Allah or what Allah puts in the hearts of the prophets and the righteous, such as His guidance, light, support, and the likes.
If this is the case, it is known that their interpretation of the Messiah's statement "Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" [106] is outright lying about him. Similarly, their interpretation of the prophets' words as establishing the three hypostases is outright lying about them. For example, they say that "the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob" were meant to affirm the existence of three gods. This is one of the things in which their misguidance and fabrication about the prophets is known by necessity, and it is known that the god of the three is one. The god of Abraham is not some other god than the god of Isaac. Even if the hypostases are assumed to be true, no rational person would say that one of the hypostases is the god of such and such and the other hypostases are other gods. No rational person said that, neither the Christians nor others. They do not say that the Father is the god of Abraham, for example, and the Son is the god of Isaac, and the Holy Spirit is the god of Jacob. Rather, they agree, despite their belief in the trinity, that they are all one god for all the messengers, and that the god of this one is not a hypostasis and the god of that one is another hypostasis. This points out that their interpretation of the prophets' words is falsehood, and it does not befit their invented trinity or accord with the views of the people of monotheism who follow the messengers of Allah Almighty. See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
[The Christians' argument for the three hypostases]
[The first text]:
They said: "As for our statement about Allah - three hypostases, one God - it is that Allah uttered it and clarified it in the Torah and in the prophets' books. This includes the words in the first book of the Torah, which read: 'When Allah willed to create Adam, He said: 'Let Us make man in Our image and after Our likeness.'' [107] See: Book of Genesis (1: 26).
Who could be in His image and after His likeness other than His word and His spirit? When Adam violated the command and disobeyed his Lord, Allah Almighty said: 'Behold, Adam has become like one of Us.' [108] This clearly indicates that Allah said these words to His Son and Holy Spirit." [109] See: Book of Genesis (3: 22). This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
The response: Their citation of this as an argument for their view regarding the Messiah is utterly wrong and misguided. The Torah literally reads: "We make Adam in Our image and after Our likeness." It is also translated as: "We create a human being in Our image and he looks like Us." The meaning is the same. This is similar to Prophet Muhammad's statement: "Indeed, Allah created Adam in His image." [110] In another version: "in the image of the Most Compassionate." [111] Narrated by Muslim in his “Sahīh Collection” no. (2612). Narrated by Al-Hārith ibn Muhammad in his "Musnad Collection" (2/831), Ibn Abi ‘Āsim in "As-Sunnah" (1/228), ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad in "As-Sunnah" (1/268), and Ibn Khuzaymah in "At-Tawhīd" (1/85).
So, their statement "Who could be in His image and after His likeness other than His word and spirit?" is quite invalid from several aspects:
The First Aspect: There is nothing like Allah, and the text does not literally read: "in Our likeness". [112] Allah Almighty says: {There is nothing like unto Him.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 11] He also says: {and there is none comparable to Him.} [Surat al-Ikhlās: 4]
The Second Aspect: In any case, whether these words are true or false, they do not pertain to the Messiah in particular. Regardless of how this statement, "We create a human being in Our image who looks like Us" is interpreted, it is not particularly linked to the Messiah.
The Third Aspect: If they intend by the words "in His image and after His likeness" to mean His attribute, which is the knowledge existing in Him and the life existing in Him, indeed an attribute does not constitute a likeness of the one possessing it, for the one possessing it is an independent essence and the attribute exists in him. What exists in something else is not like what is inseparable.
And if they mean something else other than His attributes, like the body and soul of the Messiah, these are created things, and a created thing is not like the Creator. The same applies to the Holy Spirit; whether it means an angel, guidance, or support, it does not constitute a likeness of Allah Almighty.
The Fourth Aspect: He said: "Let Us create man," or "We will create Adam," or "We create human beings in Our image and after Our likeness." And according to them: "We create man in Our image and after Our likeness." In any case, this refers to a created being, while the word of Allah and His spirit, in their belief, are not created beings. So, this could not be intended to refer to His word and spirit.
If they say that He intended by this the Christian human nature, indeed there is no difference between that Christian human nature and all the other human natures. Nonetheless, this text refers to Adam, the father of mankind, by consensus among all nations. Besides, human nature itself is not the word and spirit of Allah.
The Fifth Aspect: If this happened to mean that Allah's speech resembles His Essence in some respects, like being as timeless as He is, this would not contain anything that proves the three hypostases.
The same holds true for the well-known wording: "We will create man in Our image and after Our likeness." This does not indicate the trinity in any way. Something may resemble another in some respects, but this does not entail that they should be identical and treated alike in what is obligatory, permissible, and impossible. If it is said this one is living, knowing, and able, and that one is living, knowing, and able, and so both are similar in terms of the names of the traits for being living, knowing, and able, this does not entail that this name should be identical with that one in what is obligatory, permissible, and impossible. However, here are three things:
First: There is the shared amount in which both are similar. It is a comprehensive meaning that is not exclusively linked to one of them, as there is no comprehensive, general, or common meaning except in the knowledge of the knower.
Second: This is about what is not exclusively possessed by him, as the Lord particularly possesses the traits of life, knowledge, and ability.
Third: This relates to what is not exclusively possessed by Him, as man particularly possesses the traits of life, knowledge, and ability. What the Almighty Lord possesses exclusively is not shared by the slave, and it may not have any of the defects that may exist in the slave's attributes. And what the slave possesses exclusively is not shared by the Lord, and the slave does not deserve any of the attributes of perfection exclusively possessed by the Almighty Lord.
As for the shared amount, it is like the comprehensive meaning in the minds of people. This does not entail the particular traits of the Creator or the particular traits of the created being, for there is nothing wrong with having these traits in common.
The Torah's words read: "We will create man in Our image and after Our likeness." He did not say: After Our example. This is similar to the Prophet's (ﷺ) statement in the authentic Hadīth: "Let none of you say, 'may Allah make your face ugly and any face like your face,' for Allah Almighty created Adam in His image." [113] The prophets (peace be upon them), like Moses and Muhammad (ﷺ), only mentioned the phrase "after Our likeness," not "after Our example." Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (7538), Ibn Abi ‘Āsim in "As-Sunnah" (1/229), Ibn Battah in "Al-Ibānah Al-Kubra" (7/261), Al-Lālikā’i in "Sharh Usūl I‘tiqād Ahl As-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamā‘ah" (3/470).
The Sixth Aspect: That His statement: "We will create man after Our likeness" does not refer to His attributes, like His speech and life that exist in Him, for these are not created things. Then, this does not address the divine nature who they alleged that shielded himself in the human nature, for the divine nature is not a created being.
As for human nature, it is like all other people's human nature. It is not particularly endowed with being like Allah to the exclusion of the other human natures. Their statement: "Who could be the created being in His image other than His word and His spirit?" is false in all ways.
Considering His statement, "Behold, Adam has become like one of Us," and their statement: "This clearly indicates that Allah said these words to His Son and His Holy Spirit."
If they mean that He meant His son by the one who "became like one of Us," this is utterly false, for if this son is referred to by the word, which is an attribute of Allah, then indeed no command was given with regard to it to become like one of Them, and it is not called Adam, neither did Allah call it a son.
And if this is intended to refer to the Messiah's human nature, then it is a newly created being who could not be like the Eternal and Timeless One.
Moreover, Allah said this about Adam, and Adam is not the Messiah, and it is not valid to say Adam and intend by it to refer to the Messiah, just as it is not valid to say "Adam disobeyed" while intending by it to refer to the Messiah.
Also, He said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of Us," and this refers to something that happened in the past, not to something that would happen thousands of years later.
If they mean that Allah said to His son, who is His word and spirit: "Behold, Adam has become like one of Us," i.e., Allah spoke to His son and spirit, as intended by them, like their statement: "Allah said these words by way of mocking Adam." In other words, He asked that he be "like one of Us" and he became like that, nude and disgraced.
Their misconception stems from the words "one of Us," as He used the plural form. This also applies to His statement: "We will create man in Our image and after Our likeness." They used the plural form as an argument for the Trinity.
This was one of the things cited by the Najrān Christians as an argument against the Prophet (ﷺ). They cited Allah's word "We", saying: This proves they are three. All this falls under the ambiguous verses which they followed, seeking discord, and seeking their false interpretation, and abandoning the specific clear verses which denote exact meanings, for Allah, in all His divine books, pointed out that He is one God and that He has no partner or equal.
As for His use of the word "We", this is a word that is used in all languages by someone who has partners and peers and by a great dominant one who has assistants obeying him, though they are not his partners or peers. Allah Almighty created everything except Himself. So, it is not possible for Him to have a partner or a peer. The angels and all creation are His soldiers. Allah Almighty says: {and none knows the soldiers of your Lord but He.} [Surat al-Muddaththir: 31] Allah Almighty also says: {To Allah belong the soldiers of the heavens and earth, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.} [Surat al-Fat'h: 7]
If a king says "We" without intending the reference to three kings, then the Possessor of the dominion and the Lord of the worlds and everything is more entitled to say: "We", though He has no partner or equal; rather, the soldiers of the heavens and the earth belong to Him.
Also, it is known that Adam did not ask to become like Allah or like His attributes, such as His knowledge and life.
Moreover, the word does not seem to indicate that Allah addressed His attributes by this.
Besides, an attribute that exists in someone cannot address or be addressed; rather, it is the one possessing the attribute who can be addressed. Allah was yet to create the Messiah's human nature or the other humans so that they could be addressed. Thus, it becomes known that their claim that Allah addressed His attribute which they called a son and a holy spirit is false. Yet, He may address the angels.
As for Adam (peace be upon him), he wanted immortality and the kingdom which Satan made him desire. Allah Almighty says: {Then Satan whispered to him and said: "O Adam, shall I show you the tree of immortality and a kingdom that will never decay?"} [Surat Tāha: 120]
[The second text]:
They said: "When Allah caused the earth to swallow Sodom and Gomorrah, He said in the Torah: 'Then, the Lord rained down fire and burning sulfur from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah.' By this, He showed the lordship of the Father and the Son." This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Genesis (19: 24).
The response: Their citation of this as an argument is utterly invalid, for several reasons:
The First Reason: That Allah named His knowledge and life as a son and a lord is untrue. Indeed, Moses did not name any of Allah's attributes in the Torah as "the Son" or "the Father". So, the claim that Moses (peace be upon him) meant by the Lord any of Allah's attributes or that He has an attribute called His Son is false.
The Second Reason: If the attribute of Allah is presumed to be called as such, it is known that the one who caused the rain to come down had the rain with him; the rain did not exist with one of them and the other sent it down. It is also not valid to say that one of them was created from something with the other, or that one of them sent down the rain from the clouds of the other.
The Third Reason: An attribute does not do an action or possess anything; rather, it exists in the one possessing it, and it is the essence that possesses the attribute that does action, and with it what is done is done.
The Fourth Reason: This is like him saying: The Lord sent down rain from Himself. He, however, used the apparent name in place of the pronoun, because the command belongs to Him alone in this and that.
Similar to this is found in the Qur’an: Allah Almighty says: {The Inevitable Hour! What is the Inevitable Hour?} [Surat al-Hāqqah: 1-2] {The Striking Calamity! What is the Striking Calamity?} [Surat al-Qāri‘ah: 1-2]. Allah Almighty also says: {The revelation of this Book is from Allah, the All-Mighty, All-Wise.} [Surat az-Zumar: 1] {A revelation from the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.} [Surat Fussilat: 2] Allah is the One Who revealed it; nonetheless, He did not say: "from Me".
[The third text]:
They said: "We mention a third one. And David said in Psalms, Psalm 109: 'The Lord says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies beneath your feet.'" [115] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Psalms (110: 1).
The response comprises several aspects:
The First Aspect: It is not valid to say that "my lord" refers to any of Allah's attributes, for neither David nor any of the prophets did call any of Allah's attributes a lord or a son, neither did anyone address any of Allah's attributes, saying "My Lord, show mercy upon me" or address Allah's knowledge, speech, or ability, saying: O Lord! This is since they did not call Allah's attributes as a lord. If the Messiah were one of Allah's attributes, it would be invalid to refer to him by the word "lord"; so, what if his human nature were farther from that than the divine nature? This means that they did not intend by this the divine nature or the human one.
The Second Aspect: He said: "The Lord said to my lord." He attributed the latter to himself, not the former, indicating that He is his Lord Who created him. The Christians, exceeding the proper bounds, say: "A true god from a true god," considering him a creator. But as for them considering him to be worthier than the Father by being the lord of David, they did not say that, and it is wrong.
The Third Aspect: This does not mention the three hypostases. At most, it makes mention of the son, according to their wrong interpretation of it. As for the three hypostases, no mention of them, by their words or their meanings, is made whatsoever in the books of Allah which are at their hands, let alone the Qur’an. Rather, they invented the word "hypostasis" and used it to express what they made the meanings of the books of Allah to be, whereas they do not indicate that. By doing so, they interpreted the speech of Allah without understanding its meaning or expressing it in words that denote what is intended.
The Fourth Aspect: He said, "my lord" and intended by it "the master", as Joseph is quoted in the Qur’an as saying: {My lord has made my stay good.} [Surat Yūsuf: 23] And he said to the king's servant: {Mention me to your lord.} [Surat Yūsuf: 42] And Allah Almighty says: {But Satan made him forget to mention this to his lord.} [Surat Yūsuf: 42]
Hence, he mentioned the former in general terms and the latter in a specific way. Thus, the meaning is: Allah said to my master. The Lord of the worlds said to my master. He called him "master" out of modesty and respect on the part of David, given his belief that he is better than him.
[The fourth text]:
They said: "We mention a fourth one. He said in the second psalm: The one who said to me: You are my Son. Today I have begotten you." [116] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch. See: Book of Psalms (2: 7).
The response comprises a number of aspects:
The First Aspect: In this, no attribute of Allah - His knowledge or life - is called a son, nor does it mention the three hypostases. So, this does not provide an argument for any of your claims.
The Second Aspect: This is an argument against you. Allah Himself called David His Son, which means that the name "son" is not particularly linked to Messiah (peace be upon him), as Allah called other servants of His "a son". It becomes known that the name "the son" is not a name for Allah's attributes. Yet, it is a name for those of His servants He raises. Hence, the Messiah was not called a son because the Lord or His attribute united with him. But, as He called David a son and called Israel a son, He said: "You are my first-born Son."
This is found in their books, as previously mentioned. If what is in their books is the speech of Allah, then it provides no argument for them because He means the raised one; and if it is not the speech of Allah and His messengers, then it constitutes no argument, for the speech of fallible people is not an argument.
The Third Aspect: His statement "Today, I have begotten you" indicates the occurrence of this action, and according to them, the word which they called the Son was begotten from the eternal and timeless Father, as they mentioned in their Nicene Creed: "And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, light from Light, true god from true God, of the Essence of His Father, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made."
This Son, according to them, was begotten by the Father before all ages, whereas that one was born on the day He spoke to him after the creation of David. Thus, this new one does not prove the existence of that timeless one.
The Fourth Aspect: If the "Father", in their language, is the Lord Who raises His slave better than the father raises his son, then the word "birth" should be consistent with this meaning of fatherhood. Hence, the meaning should be: Today, I have made you chosen and bestowed with mercy.
The Christians may regard such speech that uses a pronoun referring to other than the Messiah as a speech addressed to the Messiah. They may say: The Messiah is intended by this, whereas this is untrue and not indicated by the text. If we assume that this was true, it still indicates that the Messiah is the created human person and the one called "son", like His statement: "Today, I have begotten you."
Divine nature, according to them, was begotten before all ages. So, if this is intended to refer to the day of his birth, then the meaning is: I have created you. And if this was the day He chose him, then the intended meaning would be: Today, I have chosen you and loved you. It is as if He said: Today, I have made you a child and son, according to their language.
[The fifth text]:
They said: "We mention a fifth one. In the second book of the Torah: 'And Allah spoke to Moses from the bush, saying: 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'' [117] He did not say: I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but He repeated the name 'God' three times, saying: I am a God, a God, and a God. This is due to the realization of the issue of the three hypostases in His divinity." [118] See: Book of Exodus (3: 15). This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
The response: Using this as an argument for the three hypostases is utterly invalid, as shown by the following aspects:
The First Aspect: If the word "God" was intended to mean the hypostasis of existence, the second mention of "God" was intended to mean the hypostasis of the word, and the third one was intended to mean the hypostasis of life, then the first hypostasis would be the God of Abraham, the second hypostasis would be the God of Isaac, and the third one would be the God of Jacob. Thus, each of the three hypostases would be the God of one of the three Prophets. The two hypostases are not two gods for him. Indeed, this constitutes disbelief, according to them and all the adherents of the religions.
Moreover, this would entail the existence of three gods, whereas they say there is one God. And if they say that each of the hypostases is one god, they thus make all of them the god of each prophet. So, if they cite this text as an argument for their statement, this will entail that the god of each prophet is different from the god of the other prophets, with the existence of three gods.
The Second Aspect: It is said: Indeed, Allah is the Lord of the worlds, the Lord of the heavens, the Lord of the earth, the Lord of the Throne, and the Lord of everything. This entails that the Lord of the heavens is different from the Lord of the earth. Likewise, it is said, the God of Moses and the God of Muhammad - in addition to saying: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Would there be five gods then? Jacob is quoted as saying to his children: {"What will you worship after me?" They said: "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers – Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac."} Does this affirm the existence of two gods, one of whom is his god and the other is the god of the three prophets?!
The Third Aspect: A conjunction is either used for the difference of essences or the difference of attributes - like the verses that read: {Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High, Who created and fashioned in due proportion, and Who determined [the creation] then guided them, and Who brings forth the pasture, then makes it into withered chaff.} [Surat al-A‘la: 1-5] Indeed, the One Who created is the One Who determined the creation and brings forth the pasture. Similar is their statement: {your God and the God of your fathers.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 133] Allah Almighty is One and the same God. Also, Abraham (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying to his people: {He said: "Do you see what you have been worshiping, you and your ancestors? Indeed, they are my enemies, except the Lord of the worlds, Who created me, so He guides me, and it is He Who provides me with food and drink, and when I am ill, He heals me, and He will cause me to die then bring me back to life, and I hope that He will forgive me my sins on the Day of Judgment."} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 75-82] Indeed, the One Who created him is the One Who provides him with food and drink and the One Who will cause him to die and then bring him back to life.
So, His statement in the Torah "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" falls under this category, and this is not particularly restricted to three, but it may also be said regarding two, four, or five, according to the speaker's intent to mention attributes. In fact, this serves a certain benefit that does not exist in the statement - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - for if it was said this way, this would only signify that He is the God of the three Prophets and would not indicate that each of them worshiped Him in a separate manner; each of them devoted particular worship to Him that was not the same as the worship by the other.
Also, if it were said, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," this would signify the worship of each of them by necessity. And if it were said, "and the God," this would indicate that He is the worshiped deity of each one of the three Prophets. So, he repeated the name "God" which signifies worship by the very substance of the word. This makes the meaning clear and presents it in a varied way.
They said: "Because of this clear statement by Allah in the Torah and in the prophets' books, we believe in three hypostases: One Essence, One God, One Lord, and One Creator. This is what we say: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." [119] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
The response comprises a number of aspects:
The First Aspect: The Torah and the other divine books affirm the oneness of Allah and negate the existence of multiple gods or the divinity of anyone else, in a clear manner that disproves the statement of the Christians and the like of them. Besides, no mention of the hypostases, by words or meanings, is made in these books. They, however, consider hypostasis a name for the Essence, along with the attribute, whereas the Essence is one; it is the attributes that are multiple, not the Essence.
The Second Aspect: They say: Rather, this affirms the existence of one God. Then, in their Nicene Creed and their arguments and other speech, they make statements that explicitly affirm the existence of three gods. Thus, their statements are contradictory to one another, and they say contradictory things whose falsity is known to every rational person.
The Third Aspect: Their statement: "This is what we say: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." They admit that they did not make this statement in the first place, and neither did they know the trinity by reason, which they proclaimed in their Nicene Creed and expressed with this phrase. This phrase is even transmitted in some of their Gospels: The Messiah (peace be upon him) instructed them to baptize people with it. Then, if the Messiah did say this, they should consider what he intended by it and should also consider his other statements and their meanings. His speech should be interpreted according to the language he spoke in a way consistent with all the other statements he made.
Those people took the statements of the Messiah and the other prophets (peace be upon them) to mean something not indicated by their speech; rather, it indicates the opposite. They called Allah's speech, knowledge, wisdom, or utterance a son, which is an appellation they invented, whereas none of the prophets called any of Allah's attributes a son, a lord, or a god. Moreover, when they invented this name, they said: By "the son", the Messiah meant: the word. Thus, they fabricated a lie about the Messiah (peace be upon him) and took his speech to mean something not indicated by its very words.
Chapter Four: The Christians' claim that Trinity is rationally and textually proven
Rational Evidence on Trinity
[1] They said: (We learnt that if we adopt this principle (of Trinity), it is not binding on us to worship three gods; rather, it is one God. It is the same as when we say: Man, his speech, and his spirit are not three people; rather, it is one person. Similarly, when we refer to the flame of the fire, its light, and its heat, we are not referring to three fires, and when we speak of the sun disc, its light, and its rays, we are not speaking of three suns. If this is how we regard Allah Almighty, then we are blameless and guiltless, as we did not neglect what we received, and we did not reject what we have been entrusted with to follow anything else, especially since we possess such conclusive evidence and obvious proofs from the Book that was brought by this man. [2] A side remark / The Christians claim that there is no contradiction between Trinity and Tawhīd (monotheism). Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 421).
The reply to this has several aspects, which are:
[3] The First Aspect: You have declared in your doctrine, in your inference, and in your other speeches the existence of multiple deities. So, this is not something that people falsely attribute to you; rather, you proclaim this as you previously said: (We believe in one God, the Father who controls all, the Creator of what is seen and what is not seen; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of Allah, the one born of the Father before all ages, a light from light, a true god from a true god, from the essence of his father, a non-created newborn, equal to the Father in essence; and we believe in the Holy Spirit, the god who gives life, emanating from the Father, with the Father, to whom all prostrate and who is glorified.) [4] A side remark / The Christians declared the multiplicity of gods in "Al-Amānah". See: The law of faith in the book of "Al-Bāba Athanasius ar-Rasūli" by Mīna Badī‘ (p.35), and "Orthodoxy is a Law of Faith for All Ages" by Father Anthony M. Coniaris (p.26).
This is a clear declaration of your belief in three gods and that the son is: a true god from a true god. Despite your declaration of three gods and your declaration that this is a true god from a true god, you say that this is one God, although this is a declaration of belief in multiple gods while claiming to believe in one God.
[5] The Second Aspect: Their saying: "If we adopt this principle (of Trinity), it does not mean to worship three gods; rather, it is one God. When we say: Man, his speech, and his spirit are three people; rather, it is one person. Similarly, when we refer to the flame of the fire, its light and its heat, we are not referring to three fires, and when we speak of the sun disc, its light and its rays, we are not speaking of three suns." A side remark / Invalidity of the examples used by Christians, likening the multiple deities to the attributes of man, fire, and the sun.
The reply to this is that using such examples is invalid for a few reasons, which are:
First: The heat and light of the fire, which exist in it, are not fire from fire or an essence from an essence, and they are also not equal to the fire and the sun in essence. Moreover, man's speech is not a human being from a human being and is not equal to man in essence. Similarly, the sun and its light and rays, which exist in it, are not a sun or an independent essence. However, you said: "A true god from a true god." In "Al-Amānah", you said: "We believe in one God, the Father who controls all, the Creator of what is seen and what is not seen, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of Allah, the one born of the Father before all ages, a light from light, a true god from a true god, from the essence of his Father, equal to the Father in essence." Moreover, you said about the Holy Spirit that he is a glorified god to whom prostration is due; thus, you affirmed the belief in three gods.
Second: The light in the sun and fire refers to the same light that exists in them and could refer to the rays that exist on the earth and walls, which are different and separate from them. The word "Light" is used to refer to both and both are subsidiary and incidental attributes. The word "Light" could also refer to the fire itself, the sun itself, and the moon itself, and in this case, light is an independent essence. If so, they consider "the Father" a god and an independent essence, "the Son" a god and an independent essence, and "the Holy Spirit" a god and an independent essence.
However, it is known that each of the light and heat of the fire and the sun are neither an independent sun and fire nor an independent essence. Had they considered Allah's life and His knowledge or speech as two of His attributes without considering each attribute as a god and an independent essence, their words would have been true, and their example would have been identical. However, they have not only considered them Allah's two attributes, but they have also considered each of them a god, an essence, and a creator. Even more, they declared that Jesus, whom they claim that one of them is united with him, is a god and a creator. If the word of Allah itself and His knowledge are not a creating god, then the speech of Allah and His knowledge are not a creating god. So, how about the fact that Jesus was created by Allah's word, and he is not Allah's word itself?
Third: Their saying: "The sun and its rays and its light," if they are referring by "light" to what exists in the sun and by "rays" to what is separated from it, then this is different from the fire with its heat and flame, which both exist in it.
Therefore, only one attribute, not two, exists in the sun, which makes it unfit for the example given.
However, if they are referring to "light" and "rays" to both attributes that exist in the sun or to both attributes that are separated from the sun, then in this case both refer to one attribute, unlike the two attributes of life and knowledge. Consequently, using the sun in such a comparison is wrong.
Some of them say: The sun and its heat and its light and say the same about fire. Such a comparison is right if it is proven that there is heat existing in the body of the sun. However, this is not proven, and many rational people deny this and claim that the bodies of the sun, moon, and planets are not to be described as hot or cold, which is the opinion of Aristotle and his disciples.
As for using man's spirit and speech in the example, if they mean by "spirit" man's life, then this is not the concept of the spirit. And if they mean the soul that departs his body by death and that is called the speaking self, then, this is an independent essence and not one of his incidental attributes. Then, this requires that the spirit of Allah be an independent essence along with another essence represented in the human body. This means that the Almighty Lord is a combination of body and soul like the human being. This is not the opinion held by Muslims, Jews, and Christians; rather, it is regarded as disbelief by them. Therefore, using these three in their example is invalid.
Fourth: The example either refers to the attributes of the sun, the fire, and the man, or refers to the existing self in such essences. It could also refer to something different like the light that falls on the ground, the walls, the air, and other objects facing the sun or the fire.
If this is what is meant, then it refers to the reflected rays and light, which are non-existent attributes in the sun and the fire.
On the other hand, if they mean by citing such examples drawing a comparison between the attributes of the sun, the fire, and the soul and the light, the life, and the speech that respectively exist in the sun, the fire, and the soul, in an endeavor to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are attributes of Allah just as these are attributes of such creatures, then the reply to this is as follows:
First: None of the prophets (peace be upon them) has ever expressed the attributes of Allah using such words as "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit".
Second: If you consider these as Allah's attributes, just as the light, the speech, and the heat are attributes of what they exist in, then, they cannot indwell elsewhere, which means they cannot do what the fire, the sun, and the soul can do. However, you considered the Word and the Life indwelling in other than Allah, and you considered the one in whom they indwell as a creating god or rather, the Creating God. It is well known that no rational person would ever consider whatever the light of the fire reaches as a fire or consider whatever the sun rays reach as a sun or consider whoever Zayd's speech or knowledge reaches as Zayd himself. Thus, considering Jesus as the Creator of the world contradicts your comparison.
This shows that what you mentioned is not identical to any of the examples you cited. So, it was just a false and contradictory statement that cannot be achieved. Not a single example was cited, referring to a known and proven existent proved to be identical.
[6] As for their saying: "As we did not neglect what we received, and we did not reject what we have been entrusted with," it is similar to what the Jews said to Jesus as they said to him: "We shall not neglect what we received and we shall not reject what we have been entrusted with by Moses (peace be upon him)." The reply to both groups has two aspects, which are: A side remark / Christians claim that they have not neglected, in the past and present, what they received from the previous prophets.
First: You [Christians] altered and distorted the book that was revealed to you and the legislation prescribed for you. There is no doubt about this alteration of the meanings and rulings according to all rational people. Thus, what the Jews adopted after such alteration was not the legislation brought by Moses (peace be upon him). Similarly, what the Christians adopted after such alteration was not the legislation brought by Jesus (peace be upon him).
Second: You did not believe in the other Book and the other Messenger who was sent to you, and whoever does not believe in what was sent to him from his Lord and in the Messenger who was sent to him is a disbeliever who deserves torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter, even if he was before that a follower of an unaltered divine legislation and a Book. So, what if its rulings and meanings have been changed and altered?!
As for their saying: "We have this evidence and proof from the Book of those people."
The reply to this is as follows: Their drawing inference from this Book and taking anything thereof as evidence in any way are invalid. This is because it was successively transmitted from the one who brought it since he said he was sent to them. They would be disbelievers if they did not believe in him and would deserve to be fought against. So, whoever believes it is unlawful to fight them is a disbeliever. The Qur’an is full of what indicates their disbelief. So, if this is Allah's Messenger and he informed us of their disbelief, then they are proven to be disbelievers since the Messenger cannot convey anything from Allah but the truth and cannot attribute any lies to Allah. Whoever attributes a lie to Allah, even in one word, is counted among the liars who fabricate lies about Allah and who deserve the punishment inflicted upon liars, as Allah Almighty says: {If he had falsely attributed something to Us, We would have surely seized him by the right hand, then severed his aorta, and none of you could have rescued him.} [Surat al-Hāqqah: 44-47] Allah Almighty also says: {Or do they say, “He has fabricated lies about Allah?” But if Allah willed, He could seal up your heart. Allah wipes out falsehood and establishes the truth by His Words.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 24]
[7] They said: "As for the incarnation of the creating Word of Allah, with which everything was created, and its assuming the form of a created human being, taken from the chosen Virgin Mary, who was given preference over all the women in the world, with whom the Word was totally united in a way free of mixing, change, or transformation, he addressed people just as Allah addressed Prophet Moses from Al-‘Awsajah tree. Through his divinity, he performed miracles, and through his human nature, he displayed inability and both actions came from the same Jesus." [8] A side remark / The claim that the creating Word is embodied in a created human being. Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 420).
The reply to this: Such statements involve many types of lies, disbelief, and contradictions that are clear in several aspects, which are:
[9] The First Aspect: Their saying: "The creating Word of Allah, with which everything was created" implies contradiction, as the Creator is the Creating God Who created everything with His statement, saying: "Be". So, the Creator did not create things with it; rather, He is the One Who created them. Moreover, statements with which things were created are not their creator; rather, the Creator used them to create things. The difference between the Creator and the creature and what was used by the Creator in the creation process is well-founded. A side remark / Their contradiction is clear in their saying that the Word is a creator or used in creating the creation.
They considered what was used in creating the creatures as the Creator, considering the Word with which the creatures were created as the Creator.
Clarification: If the Word is just an attribute, then the attribute is not a creator. Nonetheless, if the attribute is coupled with the one to whom it is attributed, then, this is the Creator, not the thing used in creating.
[10] The Second Aspect: Their saying: "Its embodiment [is] in the form of a created human being," and "the incarnation of the creating Word of Allah." Their statement, "embodied and incarnated," indicates that the Word turned into a body of a created human being, which entails its conversion into a body and structure, the thing that calls for transformation and change. Although they said: "Unity in a way free of change and transformation." Marginal remark/ Their contradiction is clear in their saying that the Word embodied in the form of a body without change and transformation.
[11] The Third Aspect: Their saying: "With whom the Word was totally united in a way free of mixing, change, or transformation" is contradictory as well. This is because the unity indicates that the two became one. So, it could be said: Before unity, divinity was an essence and humanity was a different essence. Or you might say: This was something while that was another thing, or this was an independent object while that was another independent object. After unity, either they remain two, as they were before, or the two become one. Marginal remark/ Their contradiction is clear in their saying that they united without mixing or transformation.
If they remained two as they were before, then, there is no unity; rather, they remained diverse as they were.
If they became one, then, if that one is one of them, then, the other has disappeared, which indicates the disappearance of one of them, not their unity. However, if that one is not one of them, then, they must both undergo change and transformation, otherwise if they remain with their same attributes after unity, then, this is not considered unity.
However, if it is said: "United in a way free of mixing, change, or transformation," then such words are self-contradictory, as this could describe plurality and diversity, not unity.
For example, when water and milk, or water and wine, are united, the result of their unity is something new, which is not pure water or pure milk; rather, it is a third type and each of the water and milk undergoes transformation, change, and mixing, without which unity becomes preposterous.
That is why the Christians have suffered great confusion and have held widely diverse opinions in this regard, with each of them trying to refute the other's opinion while each opinion itself is refuted. Thus, all their opinions were false and refuted as they shared one invalid doctrine that entails many false conclusions. So, anything derived from such conclusions is false and this is inevitable. So, when one of them adopts some of those conclusions, his argument is refuted by others and so on.
This is the case with all false statements; if shared by a group, they entail false corollaries. A false corollary indicates a false assumption, as each of them is related to the other in terms of presence and absence.
[12] The Fourth Aspect: It is said that many Christians state that both, after their unity, became one essence, one nature, and one will. This statement is attributed to the Jacobites, who also state that divinity and humanity merged and mixed as water and milk mix together and as water and wine mix together. This statement expresses true unity, which cannot take place in a different manner; however, the corruption of such an idea is obvious to people's minds. If this is a corollary of the Christians' statement and its falsity is obvious, then, the falsity of the corollary indicates the falsity of the assumption. This statement means that the one who used to eat and drink, urinate, and defecate, the one who was beaten and spat on and upon his head thorns were placed is the Lord of the worlds! Marginal remark/ The falsity of unity as it entails that the Lord possesses deficient human characteristics.
The perception of such a statement itself by knowledge is inevitably false, as Allah is far exalted above this, and he who adopts such an opinion is one of the worst fabricators of lies about Allah Who said: {They say, “The Most Compassionate has begotten a son.” You have made a monstrous statement, at which the heavens are about to be torn apart, the earth split asunder, and the mountains tumble down. because they have ascribed to the Most Compassionate a son. It is not appropriate for the Most Compassionate to beget a son. There is none in the heavens and earth except that he will come to the Most Compassionate in full submission. He has counted them and numbered them precisely. Each one of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection all alone.} [Surat Maryam: 88-95]
[13] The Fifth Aspect: Their saying: "He addressed people just as Allah addressed Prophet Moses from Al-‘Awsajah tree," entails that those whom Jesus spoke to, those who believed in him and those who disbelieved in him, had the same status as that of Mūsa ibn ‘Imrān (Moses) to whom Allah spoke directly. Marginal remark/ The underlying implication that Jesus' followers are equal in status to the prophets.
It is known that Allah preferred Moses over other prophets by speaking directly to him. So, if any of the people enjoyed the same status of Mūsa ibn ‘Imrān, then, this entails that each one of those people enjoys the same status of Mūsa ibn ‘Imrān, which is an inevitably false assumption according to the prophets' religion.
[14] The Sixth Aspect: It is known that Allah's address to His prophets and messengers is better than His address to one who is neither a prophet nor a messenger, and Jesus (peace be upon him) did not speak to most of the prophets and messengers; rather, he spoke only to people among whom were those who believed in him and those who disbelieved. Marginal remark/ The underlying implication that the disbelievers to whom Jesus spoke are more perfect than the messengers to whom Allah did not speak directly.
In fact, Jesus did not speak to any of the Messengers of Allah; however, the Christians claim that the disciples are messengers of Allah, which is a false claim. Even if we assume it is true, then, he spoke only to twelve messengers although Allah had sent many messengers before him, as it was narrated in the Hadīth of Abu Dharr that they were three hundred and thirteen. [15] See: "Musnad Abi Dāwūd at-Tayālisi" (1/384) no. (480); "Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr" by At-Tabarāni (8/217) no. (7871); and "Shu‘ab al-Imān" by Al-Bayhaqi (1/276) no. (129).
Allah Almighty says in the Noble Qur’an: {Indeed, We sent to every community a messenger, [saying], “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” Among them were some whom Allah guided, while others were destined to stray.} [Surat an-Nahl: 36] Allah Almighty also says: {There has never been any community except that a warner came to it.} [Surat Fātir: 24]
There is also the Hadīth in Al-Musnad Collection on the authority of Bahz ibn Hakīm from his father from his grandfather who reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "You complete seventy nations, and you are the best among them and the most honorable in the sight of Allah Almighty." [16] Whether these seventy nations were the ones that He guided or all the nations, this indicates the abundance of the messengers. Allah did not speak to any of these messengers through a human being in which He was embodied. So, if the one who spoke to people through Jesus had been Allah, then, Allah's address to those whom Jesus spoke to, from the disbelievers and believers, would have been more perfect than His address to the messengers whom He sent. Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (7080) and by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (20269).
[17] The Seventh Aspect: The human nature of Jesus is like the human nature of all other people. Man cannot see Allah in this world as reported by Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (ﷺ). If he cannot see Him, then it is more logical that he cannot contact or touch Him, let alone be united with Him. Marginal remark/ Jesus is a human being like all people, and he is unable to see Allah in this worldly life or be united with Him.
[18] The Eighth Aspect: When Allah spoke to Moses (peace be upon him) from the tree, the audible speech was different from that of people. Hence, the Children of Israel could not stand hearing such a voice; rather, they said to Moses: Describe that for us. This is mentioned in their Torah, as narrated by Al-Khallāl in the book "As-Sunnah" on the authority of Ahmad ibn Hanbal who reported the following from the Hadīth of Az-Zuhri: (When Moses heard the speech of Allah, he said: O Lord, is Your speech that which I hear? He said: Yes, O Moses, it is My speech. I spoke to You with the strength of ten thousand tongues, although I possess the power of all tongues and I am even stronger than that. I spoke to you in a way that your body can stand, and if I had spoken to you with more than that, you would have died. Then, when Moses returned to his people, they said to him: Describe to us the speech of your Lord. He said: May Allah be Exalted, how could I describe it to you? They said: Then tell us what it is like. He said: Have you heard the voices of thunderbolts that strike in the sweetest manner you have ever heard? It is something like that.) [19] Marginal remark/ Allah's voice and speech are not like those of human beings, and Jesus spoke in a human voice like all mankind. Narrated by Al-Ājurri in "Ash-Sharī‘ah" (3/1117) and by Ibn Battah in "Al-Ibānah al-Kubra" (6/ 310-311), and this text is not found in the printed book of "As-Sunnah", by Al-Khallāl, which is available with us.
As for Jesus (peace be upon him), everyone could hear his voice. It was like the voice of all other people without any distinction that could imply their hearing the speech of Allah as it was heard by Mūsa ibn ‘Imrān.
[20] The Ninth Aspect: When a jinni indwells in a man body, as in the epileptic, and speaks through his tongue, man's speech is changed and those around him realize that such is not human speech even though the jinni speaks using man's tongue and his bodily movements. So, the voice is produced by a human body movement, but it changes in a way that makes it different from normal human speech. As for the human possessed by the jinni, he becomes unconscious and unaware of what the jinni says through his tongue. Marginal remark/ If the Lord had been united with Jesus, the latter's human nature would have changed; however, this did not happen.
So, if the Almighty Lord of the worlds had been indwelled and united with a human being speaking through him, and such an audible speech had been Allah's speech, the difference between such speech and that of a normal human would have been clear, and the condition of such a human being would have experienced a notable change. This is because when the Almighty Lord appeared to the mountain, it was leveled to dust, and Moses fell unconscious. So, if the human body could not stand the Lord's appearance to the mountain, how could it stand being indwelled by Him and His speaking through his tongue without any change in this human body?
When revelation and angels were descending on the prophets' inside, change would appear on their bodies. When the revelation descended on the Prophet (ﷺ), he would become heavier to the extent that the camel he was riding would kneel, and if his thigh was on somebody's thigh, it would become heavier to the extent of almost bruising it.
In the two "Sahīhs", ‘Ā’ishah reported that Al-Hārith ibn Hishām said: O Messenger of Allah, how does the revelation come to you? He said: (Sometimes it comes to me like the ringing of a bell, and that is the hardest for me. When it leaves me, I remember what it said. And sometimes the angel appears to me in the shape of a man, he talks to me, and I understand what he says. ‘Ā’ishah said: I saw him when the revelation was descending upon him on a very cold day; when it had left him, his forehead would drip with sweat.) [21] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh" no. (2) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh" no. (2333).
As for Moses (peace be upon him), when he heard the speech of Allah, he would hate mankind as Allah's speech had filled his hearing, and light used to appear on his face to the extent that he used to put a veil on his face.
According to the Christians, Jesus was united with God since the time Mary conceived him, and He remained united with him while he was in her womb. Such unity grew with him as he was growing. Then, He remained united with him when he was a boy and until he was raised to the heaven and sat on his Father's right. For them, Jesus is united with God, a unity between divinity and humanity as a whole. However, Jesus' body did not change in a way that fits such a unity and no lights appeared on him. Rather, they believe that Jesus, before being baptized by John and seeing the dove descending on him, did not show any signs, i.e., he was like other people and the first sign that appeared was turning water into wine.
On the other hand, once Moses (peace be upon him) heard Allah's speech, light appeared on him, despite the enormous difference between hearing Allah's speech and being united with Him.
When Moses heard Allah's speech, as He spoke to him through the tree, the angels descended, and signs of Allah's greatness appeared befitting to such a great incident of Allah's speaking.
For Christians, the Lord is always united with Jesus' body; however, he showed no signs of divinity or greatness except those most of which were shown by some prophets.
[22] The Tenth Aspect: If the one who addressed people was the combination of divinity and humanity, then, his words were clear concerning the fact that he was a creature and a slave, supplicating and asking; however, such a combination could not be a creature asking and worshiping Allah. Marginal remark/ Jesus declared that he was a creature and that his audible speech was a creature; however, Moses heard God's speech clearly, thus, there is no point of resemblance here.
If he was divinity alone, as implied by their words, then this is far more impossible. If he was humanity alone, then God did not address people and Allah did not speak to people from this human being as He spoke to Moses from the tree.
Moreover, there would be no difference between the reality of human speech and divine speech.
Jesus' clear statements concerning the fact that he is a creature are so many and they acknowledge this; however, they say that such words emerge from the human part in him. The reply to this is: Then, the one who addressed people was human not divine; however, you said that Allah addressed people from Jesus' body as He addressed Moses from the tree.
The speech that Moses heard from the tree was all God's speech, whereas the speech that was heard from Jesus had nothing to do with God; rather, most of it was clearly human speech.
[23] The Eleventh Aspect: When Allah spoke to Moses from the tree, the speech was that of Allah alone, the tree did not by any means speak. So, if this is an identical example, then, the one who spoke to people from the human part of Jesus was God alone. Marginal remark/ Allah's speech from the tree belongs to Allah not the tree, whereas Jesus' speech belongs to him not to anyone else, which means that the comparison here is invalid.
It is known that there are clear texts in the Gospel and others indicating that the human part was the speaker, which shows the clear difference between both.
[24] The Twelfth Aspect: The One Who called Moses from the tree spoke only words related to Lordship, as He said: {I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds.} [Surat al-Qasas: 30] {Indeed, I am Allah; no one has the right to be worshiped except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer to remember me. The Hour is certainly coming, but I almost keep it hidden, so that every soul will be recompensed for what it strives. So do not let those who disbelieve in it and follow their desires distract you from it, or you will perish.} [Surat Taha: 14-16] Marginal remark/ Allah's address to Moses is the speech of Lordship, whereas Jesus' speech was a confirmation of his own humanity, which means that the comparison here is invalid.
The rest of His speech entails that it is the speech of the Lord of the worlds. However, the one speaking through Jesus said nothing of that; rather, his words confirmed the fact that he was a messenger, needy, a human being, and other things that contradict from all aspects the speech of the One Who called Moses from the tree. So, whoever considers both equal is putting a normal human being on an equal footing with the Lord of the worlds, and by that he is more misguided than those about whom Allah says: {By Allah, we were clearly misguided, when we deemed you equal to the Lord of the worlds.} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 97-98]
Those people mentioned in the verse set them as equals to Allah in some matters while admitting that they were only creatures. However, those misguided ones considered the man speaking as the Lord of the worlds Who spoke to Moses from the tree. They said: This one who spoke to people is the same One Who called Moses from the tree.
[25] The Thirteenth Aspect: It is said: It is known that Allah is far more majestic and far greater than His messengers in a way that cannot be perceived by creatures. So, if it had been Him Who spoke to people through Jesus and the disciples had been His messengers who heard His speech directly without any mediator, then, the disciples would have either been like Moses or greater. Marginal remark/ The signs of Jesus were like those of the rest of the prophets, and they were lesser than the signs of Moses. So, if Allah had indwelled in him, his signs would have definitely been greater.
It is well-known that Jesus himself did not have signs like those of Moses, let alone the disciples. The greatest among Jesus' signs was bringing the dead back to life, a sign that was already shared by other prophets like Ilyās (Elijah) and others.
The People of the Book have it mentioned in their Books that there were others whom Allah enabled to bring the dead back to life besides Jesus. Among the signs of Mūsa ibn ‘Imrān was the staff that turned into a real serpent swallowing the magicians' ropes and staffs. More than once he would throw it and it would turn into a serpent, then, on grabbing it, it would return to a staff.
It is known that this sign was unique to Moses. It is greater than bringing the dead to life. Man lives, then he returns to his first state and Allah Almighty brings the dead to life by bringing them out of their graves. He has already brought to life more than one of the dead in this worldly life.
However, a piece of wood turning into an animal then back into a piece of wood repeatedly and swallowing ropes and staffs; this is more amazing than bringing the dead to life.
Moreover, Allah informed us that He brought a greater number of dead people to life through Moses and others from among the prophets of the Children of Israel than those whom He brought to life through Jesus. Allah Almighty says: {And [remember] when you said, “O Moses, we will never believe you until we see Allah openly,” so a thunderbolt struck you while you were looking on. Then We raised you back to life after your death, so that you may be grateful.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 55-56] Allah Almighty also says: {We said, “Strike the slain with a piece of it.” This is how Allah brings the dead to life and shows you His signs, so that you may understand.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 73] Allah Almighty says as well: {Have you not seen those who left their homes, while they were in thousands for fear of death? Then Allah said to them, “Die,” then He brought them back to life. For Allah is ever Gracious to people, but most people are ungrateful.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 243]
Furthermore, Moses (peace be upon him) used to take his hand out, shining white without blemish. This is greater than healing the effects of leprosy that was practiced by Jesus (peace be upon him), as leprosy is a normal disease but what is amazing is to heal someone from it. The whiteness of the hand without suffering leprosy and its return to its former state indicates two incredible and matchless miracles.
Furthermore, Allah split the sea for Moses until he and the Children of Israel were able to cross it, whereas the Pharaoh and his soldiers drowned in it. This was also remarkable, and Jesus was not granted the like of such a great sign or the destruction of his enemy as Allah had destroyed the enemy of Moses.
Moreover, Allah fed Moses and his people with manna and quails despite the substantial number of the Children of Israel and caused twelve springs to gush forth by his striking the rock every day to be sufficient for them.
This is greater than bringing down a table from heaven and turning water into wine besides other things that were reported about Jesus (peace be upon them all).
Added to this, Moses' enemy was made to suffer from lice, frogs, blood, and other signs the like of which were not granted to Jesus. Therefore, if the disciples had been messengers to whom Allah spoke, as He spoke to Moses from the tree, they would have been like Moses, but how could it be so if Jesus himself was not granted signs like those of Moses?!
Had Jesus been God Who spoke to Moses, he would have shown greater abilities than those shown by Moses, as He did not indwell Moses' body and did not speak to people through Moses as they claim about Jesus. If those great signs were the signs with which He supported His slave Moses, so how about His signs if He Himself had indwelled in Jesus' body and had addressed people through him?!
[26] The Fourteenth Aspect: Their saying: "Allah addressed people through Jesus just as He addressed Prophet Moses from Al- ‘Awsajah tree" is blatantly false. According to the consensus of all nations, Allah did not indwell in the tree and was not united with it like the Christians claim that He indwelled in Jesus and was united with him. In their belief, Allah indwelled both inside and outside of Jesus and was united with him internally and externally. However, the Almighty Lord was neither inside the tree, nor did He indwell in it, nor was He united with it. Marginal remark/ Allah did not indwell in the tree from which He spoke to Moses, but the Christians believe in His unity with Jesus, which makes that alleged similarity invalid.
When Allah says that He spoke to him and called him from the tree, this is like His saying that he was called from the right side of the valley, as He says: {Has there come to you the story of Moses, when his Lord called out to him at the sacred valley of Tuwa?} [Surat an-Nāzi‘āt: 15-16] And in the sacred spot and the like; however, none of these entail that the Almighty Lord indwelled the inside of the sacred valley, or the blessed spot, or the right side or that He was united with any of them, or that He and any of these became one essence or one person, as some Christians claim that God and man became one essence, while others say that they became one person.
Also, none said that Allah indwelled in any of these like water in milk or like fire in iron as some of them claim that God indwelled in man.
Even if we assumed that some people said some statement that was not mentioned in the divine Books and not recognized by reason, their statement would not stand as supporting evidence, as nothing could stand as supporting evidence except that which was authentically reported from the prophets or recognized by reason.
[27] The Fifteenth Aspect: The one who spoke to Moses and called him is Allah, the Lord of the worlds. His speaking to him from the tree resembles His descent to the lowest heaven and His descent on the Day of Judgment for the reckoning of creatures. As for His indwelling in a human or His being united with him, it is impossible in many aspects in terms of reason as well as textual proofs. Moreover, He did not inform any prophet of something like this. Marginal remark/ Allah's address of Moses from the tree is something like His descent; however, indwelling in Jesus and being united with him contradicts it, thus there is no similarity here.
What Christians say is contradictory as they claim that Jesus is the Word and is the Creator because the Word and the Essence are one thing. Thus, they do not differentiate between the attribute and the one to whom it is attributed. Then, they say that what is united with Jesus is the Word not the Essence, which they call the Father, and despite this, they say that he was not divided and did not split.
It makes sense that the Word, which is the attribute, cannot be separated from the One to Whom it is attributed. Thus, it cannot undergo unity or indwelling without the One to Whom it is attributed, especially the one united and indwelling, who according to their belief, is the Creator, so it must be the Father. They do not, however, say that the one united and indwelled is the Father; rather, it is the Son. If they say that the Son is the one united and indwelled without the Father, then it is said that the united does not refer to what is not united, and here the Son is united but the Father is not united.
They say: The one united took Jesus as a cover and a place to inhabit and spoke to people through him. However, they also say: He was united with him, but the Father did not take him as a cover and did not inhabit him and was not united with him. This conclusively means that part of Him was united and part of Him was not united, as the Father was not united, but the Son was united. This contradicts their saying: "He was not divided" and it invalidates the comparison they made with the One speaking from the tree, as this was Allah the Lord of the worlds, not the Son without the Father. This, along with many other clear differences that were previously mentioned, prove the invalidity of comparing this with that.
[28] The Sixteenth Aspect: When the Almighty Lord speaks, He speaks words of Lordship. So, if Jesus had had in him the God Who sent Moses and others, he would not have submitted to Moses and his Torah, he would not have said that he had only come to complete it not to revoke it, and he would not have applied its laws, as the Lord of the worlds is definitely greater and more glorious than that. Even if he had been an angel, he would not have done that, so how about the Lord of the worlds?! Marginal remark/ Jesus was submissive to the Torah and its rulings, and had Allah been united with him, this would not have happened because He is too great to submit to it being the Lord of the worlds.
If Christians say: He did this out of fear of the Children of Israel, or out of fear that they would reject him, then their excuse would be worse than their sin, as how could the Lord of the worlds be afraid of anyone?!
When the Pharaoh rejected Moses, the latter used to bring signs that would humiliate the Pharaoh and his people despite his arrogance and the arrogance of his people, bearing in mind that the Children of Israel were not more arrogant than the Pharaoh and his people. Therefore, if he had been the Lord of the worlds, he would have supported himself with signs greater than those with which he supported his slave, Moses.
It is strange that the Christians claim Jesus' divinity, along with claiming his utter inability to the level that he was crucified.
As for Muslims, they believe that he is a supported messenger and that he was not crucified. They also believe that this is Allah's immutable rule regarding His messengers as He supports them and grants them victory over their enemies, just as He granted Noah, Abraham, and Muhammad (peace be upon them) victory. So, if it is not possible for Jesus to be a defeated messenger, then how could he be a defeated and crucified god?!
[29] The Seventeenth Aspect: If they say: [Through his divinity, he performed miracles, and through his human nature, he displayed inability]. Marginal remark/ Jesus' miracles were lesser than those of some other prophets, although He was not united with them. So, there is no need for being united with Jesus.
We say: Without being united with any human being, Allah performed greater miracles than those miracles that occurred through Jesus (peace be upon him). So, why would He need to be united with human beings if He could perform miracles without this?
[30] The Eighteenth Aspect: Miracles occurred through Jesus just as they occurred through other prophets, considering that the miracles of some of them were even greater than his. Despite this, miracles have never been a proof of the unity between God and the prophet through whom they occurred. Therefore, taking such miracles, which occurred through him, as evidence is totally false. Marginal remark/ Using miracles as evidence for Unity is totally false.
[31] The Nineteenth Aspect: If God had been united with the human, His actions should not have been distinct from the actions of humans. Since both of them have become one, all actions, whether displaying inability or miracles, belong to that One as in the examples they set for Allah Almighty. They liken this to fire with iron and to water with milk and wine. Unity entails not distinguishing between the actions of God and those of the human.
It is well-known that when a piece of iron is put in a fire until it turns as bright as the fire, it acts in one way, not in two diverse ways; one way is related to iron, while the other is related to fire. Rather, it combines the strength of iron and that of fire. What's more, it contains a third strength, which is not that of iron or of fire. In other words, it is neither pure iron nor pure fire.
Similarly, when water mixes with milk and wine, the result is one thing that acts in one way. It is not pure water or pure milk. No sane person would say that it acts in two distinct ways, one of which pertains to its being pure milk while the other pertains to its being pure water.
Therefore, their belief in Unity entails the transformation of God into human and the fact that the actions of the United One become one.
If, on the other hand, God was not united with him, then, they are two persons, two essences, two natures, and two wills. However, this is not the religion of Christians, despite the impossibility of the indwelling of the Almighty God in mankind.
Moreover, if they compare this to the soul with the body, it is known that the attributes of soul change on leaving the body and the attributes of body change when the soul departs it.
When the soul is breathed into man, he turns into a third type, i.e., a body with a soul. He is not made up only of a pure body or of a pure soul, so it would be said that he does so-and-so with his body and so-and-so with his soul. In contrast, his soul shares his actions. So, when he eats and drinks, the soul enjoys the food and drink and he is described as an eating and drinking being, or else the dead body does not eat or drink. Moreover, when he looks, derives evidence, listens, sees, and learns, the soul does this to the body and this appears on the body; however, the soul alone cannot do this. According to their belief, the actions of God after Unity are the same as before it, and the same applies to the human actions, which contradicts the principle of Unity.
Adopting such an opinion along with the belief in Unity is contradictory and invalid, and nothing like this could be imagined to exist. Even those Christians themselves who advocate this opinion cannot imagine what they are saying and cannot compare it to anything rational.
Textual Evidence on Trinity
[32] They said: "The Book brought by this man says: {The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171] This conforms with what we say, as he testified that he is a human being like us, i.e., the human aspect derived from Mary, and that he is the Word of Allah and His Spirit that are united with him. Moreover, it is impossible to create the Word of Allah, and for His Spirit to be like us, the creatures. Marginal remark/ The first evidence
[33] He also said in Surat an-Nisā’: {But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] Here, He was referring to the divine aspect, which is the Word of Allah, which did not undergo pain or experience any incidental attribute. Marginal remark/ The second evidence
[34] He also said: {And [remember] when Allah said, “O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to Myself and deliver you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] Marginal remark/ The third evidence
[35] And He said in Surat al-Mā’idah on behalf of Jesus: {I was witness over them as long as I was among them. But when You took me up, You Yourself were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness over all things.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 117] By his death, He was referring to the death of the human who was derived from Virgin Mary. Marginal remark/ The fourth evidence
He said as well in Surat an-Nisā’: {But they certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157-158] He was referring by this to the divine aspect, which is the creating Word of Allah. Consequently, we say: Jesus was crucified and suffered pain in terms of his human aspect; however, he was neither crucified nor did he suffer pain in terms of his divine aspect.) [36] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, except for the part that says: "According to this analogy, we say: "... until the end of the text. See: Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 420).
[37] The reply to this has several aspects, which are: Marginal remark/ It is an indisputably established fact of religion that Muhammad (ﷺ) did not approve God's Unity with Jesus.
The First Aspect: We say: Their claim that Muhammad (ﷺ) approved the divinity and humanity of Jesus, as alleged by those Christians, is a flagrant lie regarding Muhammad (ﷺ) that contradicts an indisputably established fact of his religion, just as his belief in Jesus (peace be upon him) and validating his message is another established fact of his religion. So, if a Jew claimed that Muhammad (ﷺ) rejected Jesus and denied his message, this would be like the Christians' claim that he said that Jesus is the Lord of the worlds and that God united with the human. Muhammad (ﷺ) declared, according to what he reported from Allah Almighty, the disbelief of whoever says this, and that it contradicts such a claim in more than one place, as Allah Almighty says: {Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly disbelieved. Say, “Who has the power to prevent Allah, if He chose to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and all those who are on earth?” To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth and everything between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is Most Capable of all things.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17]
Allah Almighty also says: {When Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell people, ‘Take me and my mother as gods besides Allah?’ He will say, ‘Glory be to You! It is not for me to say what I have no right. Had I said so, You would have surely known it. You know what is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, You are the All-Knower of all unseen.’”} [38] [Surat al-Mā’idah: 116] See the verses: [Surat al-Mā’idah: 72-77], [Surat at-Tawbah: 30-34], [Surat az-Zukhruf: 57-65].
He reported on behalf of Jesus that he did not tell them except what Allah ordered him: Worship Allah, my Lord, and your Lord, and that he was a witness over them as long as he was among them, but when Allah took him up, He Himself was the Watcher over them. So, if some of them were mistaken in what they reported from him or in interpreting his words, or they intentionally changed his religion, this would not be the fault of Jesus (peace be upon him), for he was only a messenger, and his duty was to convey the message clearly.
Allah Almighty stated that the first thing Jesus said was: {Jesus said, “I am a slave of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I am alive, and has made me dutiful to my mother and has not made me an oppressor or disobedient.} [Surat Maryam: 30-32] Then, he asked for peace for himself saying: {Peace is upon me the day I was born, the day I will die and the day I will be resurrected.} [Surat Maryam: 33]
Christians say: "May his peace be upon us," as stated by those extremists who claim his divinity, which is like the belief of Nusayrīs in ‘Ali and that of Hākimīs (‘Ubaidīs) in Al-Hākim (their ruler).
[39] The Second Aspect: We say: Allah did not mention that Jesus died or was killed; rather, He said: {O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to Myself and deliver you from those who disbelieve.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] And Jesus said: {But when You took me up, You Yourself were the Watcher over them.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 117] Marginal remark/ Allah did not mention that Jesus died or was killed.
Allah Almighty also said: {and for their saying, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so. Even those who dispute about it are in doubt; they have no certain knowledge other than conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157-158]
So, Allah dispraised the Jews for several reasons including:
their monstrous allegation against Mary, as they claimed that she was unchaste,
and their saying: {We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] Allah Almighty said: {But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] Allah attributed such a claim to them and dispraised them for it.
Allah did not mention the Christians here because some Jews were those who undertook the crucifixion of the one who looked like Jesus. None of the Christians witnessed that with them; rather, the disciples were afraid and were absent. Thus, none of them witnessed the crucifixion. The Jews witnessed it alone who informed people later that they had crucified Jesus. Those Christians and others who propagated that Jesus was crucified reported that from the Jews. They were a group of police for cases of oppression. They were not so many that their collusive fabrication of the incident would be impossible. Allah Almighty said: {But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] Thus, Allah negated that he was killed, then He said: {There will be none from the People of the Book but will believe in him [upon his return] before his death.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 159]
So, His saying: {But will believe in him} denotes an oath that refers only to the future. Thus, it indicates that such a belief will be after Allah's announcement about this.
He also said: {From the People of the Book}, which refers to both the Jews and the Christians. So, this means that all the People of the Book from among the Jews and the Christians will believe in Jesus before he dies. When he descends, the Jews and the Christians will come to believe that he is the Messenger of Allah, not a liar as claimed by the Jews, nor a God as claimed by the Christians.
Allah Almighty mentioned their belief in him when he descends on earth. When Allah Almighty mentioned raising him up by saying: {I will take you and raise you up to Myself}, indicating that Jesus will descend to earth before the Day of Judgment and will then die, He stated that they will believe in him before his death, as He said in another verse: {He was only a slave whom We favored and made him an example for the Children of Israel. If We willed, We could [destroy you and] replace you with angels, succeeding one another on earth. And he [Jesus] will be a sign of the Hour; so, do not have doubt about it and follow me. This is a straight path. Do not let Satan turn you away [from the straight path], for he is your sworn enemy. When Jesus came with clear signs, he said, “I have come to you with wisdom, and to clarify to you some of that concerning which you differ; so, fear Allah and obey me. Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord; so, worship Him. This is a straight path.” But the factions differed among themselves [about Jesus]; so, woe to the wrongdoers from the punishment of a painful Day!} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 59-65]
In the two "Sahīh Collections", it was reported from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he said: "Soon the son of Mary will descend among you as a just judge and a fair ruler. He will break the cross, kill the pig, and abolish the tribute." [40] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3448) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (155).
And Allah Almighty says: {But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so. Even those who dispute it are in doubt; they have no certain knowledge other than conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157-158] This clarifies that Allah raised him up while being alive and saved him from being killed. He also clarified that they would believe in him before his death. Added to this is His saying: {And deliver you from those who disbelieve.} Had he died, there would have been no difference between him and others.
In Arabic, the word "Tawaffi" means taking fully and grabbing, which has three types:
1. "Tawaffi" by sleep
2. "Tawaffi" by death
3. "Tawaffi" of both the soul and body, which makes one like other people living on earth who need food, drink, clothes, and sleep and who defecate and urinate. As for Jesus (peace be upon him), Allah took him, and he will remain in the second heaven until he descends to earth. His state is different from that of people on earth in terms of eating, drinking, dressing, sleeping, defecating, urinating and the like.
[41] The Third Aspect: As for their saying: "By his death, He was referring to the death of his human aspect." They should have said: "By taking him, He was referring to taking his human aspect." Whether it was said "death" or "taking", he is nothing but a human, i.e., there was nothing else in him that was not taken. Allah Almighty said: {I will take you and raise you up to Myself.} So, the one taken was the same one raised up to Allah. Marginal remark/ The Qur’an mentions that the one raised was the one taken; however, they said: The one raised was the divine aspect and the one taken was the human aspect.
Their saying: "The one raised was the divine aspect" contradicts the text of the Qur’an even if there had been death, so how about if there had been no death in the first place? They deemed the one raised up different from the one taken, yet the Qur’an says that the one raised up was the one taken.
Moreover, His saying in another verse: {But they certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself}, it is a denial of the Jews' claim as they said: {We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 157] The Jews neither claimed killing a deity nor did they claim that part of Allah's divinity was in Jesus. Moreover, Allah Almighty did not mention the claim of killing him on the Christians' authority so it would be said: They meant killing the human apart from the divine. Rather, He reported from the Jews, who believe only in the human aspect of Jesus and claimed that they killed him; thus, Allah Almighty said in reply: {But they certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself.} By this, He proved raising the one whom they claimed to have killed, who is none but a human. Hence, it became known that he was the one whose killing was negated and the same one who was raised.
The Christians admit that the human aspect was raised, but they claim that he was first crucified and then stayed in the grave either a day or three days. Then, he rose to heaven and sat to the right of the Father, the human along with the divine.
His saying: {But they certainly did not kill him} means: The negation of his killing is a certainty about which there is no doubt, unlike those who held different opinions regarding his killing, whether he was or was not killed, as they are not certain that he was killed since they have no proof for that.
This is why a group of the Christians used to say: He was not crucified, as those who crucified that man were the Jews, and they were made to see someone else resembling Jesus, as mentioned in the Qur’an. Also, according to the beliefs of the People of the Book, someone was made to resemble him, thus, they could not recognize Jesus from among them until someone said to them: I know him, so they recognized him.
[42] The Fourth Aspect: Allah Almighty said: {And [remember] when Allah said, “O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to Myself and deliver you from those who disbelieve.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] If the one raised had been the divine, the Lord of the worlds would have said to Himself or to His Word: [I shall raise You up to Myself]. Marginal remark/ If the one raised had been the divine, this would have required Allah to address Himself that He would raise Himself to Himself, which is falsehood.
Moreover, He said: {Rather, Allah raised him up.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 158] According to them, the Messiah is Allah; however, the impossibility of raising Himself to Himself is well known.
If they say: He is the Word, then they couple this with saying that he is the Creating God. They do not deem him equal to the Torah, the Qur’an, and their likes from among the words of Allah about which He said: {To Him ascend good words.} [Surat Fātir: 10] Rather, they consider him Allah, the Creator, and the Lord of the worlds, despite the impossibility of raising the Lord of the worlds to the Lord of the worlds.
[43] The Fifth Aspect: His saying: {I was witness over them as long as I was among them. But when You took me up, You Yourself were the Watcher over them} is proof that after taking him, no one watched over them except Allah, apart from the Messiah. His saying: {You Yourself} indicates limitation, as He said: {If this is indeed the truth} [Surat al-Anfāl: 32] and the like. It is, therefore, concluded that after the Messiah was taken, he was no longer a watcher over his followers; rather, Allah is the watcher over them and the One Who counts their deeds and the One Who recompenses them. As for the Messiah, he is not a watcher and he cannot, thus, know their deeds, count them, or recompense them. Marginal remark/ Allah said that He was the Watcher after raising him and that the Messiah was no longer a watcher after being raised.
[44] They said: "Allah has also called him "creator" in this Book as He said: {You created something from clay in the shape of a bird by My permission, and breathed into it, and it became a bird by My permission.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110] Marginal remark/ The fifth evidence
By the word "created" He was referring to the Word of Allah united with the humanity derived from Mary because He said the same on behalf of Prophet Dāwūd (David): ‘With the Word of Allah, the heavens and the earth were created. None is a creator except Allah, His Word, and His Spirit.’ This conforms with our opinion and our belief in the Messiah as He said: "Out of clay, he creates for you something in the shape of a bird and breathes into it and it becomes a bird by Allah's permission, i.e., by the permission of the divine Word united with the human." [45] This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, the Bishop of Antioch.
We reply: All these verses and others, which they use as arguments, represent arguments against them not in favor of them.
This is the case with all misguided people, when they use anything of Allah's Books or His prophets' words as arguments, what they use becomes a proof of invalidity of their own statements. This happens due to the greatness of Allah's revealed Books and the greatness of the words that He made His prophets utter. This is because He has provided this guidance and clarification for the creatures, serving as a cure for the hearts. Words of the prophets (peace be upon them all) must contain guidance and clarification with which Allah differentiates between the truth and falsehood, and between truthfulness and lying. However, people are misguided by their own selves, not by the Prophets of Allah Almighty. This happens either because they do not accurately reflect on what the prophets said to understand and comprehend it, or because they only adopt part of the truth, not the whole of it. An example of this is when they believe only in part of what Allah revealed. Consequently, they become misguided because of the part they did not believe in, as Allah Almighty said about Christians: {And from among those who say, “We are Christians,” We took a covenant from them, but they forgot a part of what was enjoined upon them. So, We induced hostility and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 14]
They falsely attributed statements to prophets that they did not actually say, translating their words inadequately and interpreting them improperly in a way that was not actually meant by what they (peace be upon them all) said. It is necessary to interpret the speaker's words with his own words and to consider his words in different contexts; what he would normally mean by using certain words, and the meanings that he was known to intend on a different occasion. Once his customary and habitual usage of meanings and words are known, it becomes possible to use this in deducing what he intended by his words.
Nonetheless, if the speaker's words are used to refer to a meaning that he did not usually intend, or were not used to refer to the meaning that he usually intended, or his words were interpreted contrary to the meaning that he was known to intend by making his words seem contradictory, or were not interpreted in a way that suits the rest of his speech, then any of these is considered a distortion of his words, a change of his objectives, and an attribution of lies to him.
This is the main cause behind the misguidance of those who interpreted the prophets' words in a way different from what they intended. On realizing this, we say:
The reply to what they mentioned here has a number of aspects, which are:
[46] The First Aspect: Allah did not attribute absolute or general creating ability for the Messiah, and He never described with this any of the creatures, neither an angel nor a prophet. Allah Almighty said: {Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Maintainer of everything. To Him belong the keys of the heavens and earth.} [Surat az-Zumar: 62-63] Allah Almighty also said: {He is the Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have a son when He never had a companion? He created all things, and He is All-Knowing of everything.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 101] Marginal remark/ Allah did not describe the Messiah with an absolute creating ability; rather, it was with a specific creating ability with the permission of Allah Almighty.
He described Himself as the Lord of the worlds, the Master of the Day of Judgment, the One to Whom the dominion and all praise belong, the Ever-Living, the All-Subsisting, the One Who is not overtaken by drowsiness or sleep, the One Who is Capable of everything and Who knows everything, in addition to other characteristics pertaining to Lordship. He did not describe any of His creatures with any of His unique characteristics that He described Himself with, neither a close angel nor a sent messenger.
As for the Messiah (peace be upon him), He said about him: {You created something from clay in the shape of a bird by My permission, and breathed into it, and it became a bird by My permission. You healed the born-blind and lepers by My permission.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110]
The Messiah said about himself: {I create for you from clay the figure of a bird, then breathe into it, and it will become a bird by Allah’s permission; and I heal the blind and the leper and bring the dead to life by Allah’s permission.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 49] He only mentioned creating a specific thing by Allah's permission, so how could this Creator be that one?
[47] The Second Aspect: He created from clay the figure of a bird, i.e., he made the clay in the shape of a bird. Most people are capable of this kind of creation, i.e., making clay in the shape of a bird and other animals too. However, this shaping is forbidden unlike the Messiah's shaping that was permitted by Allah. The miracle here lies in his breathing life into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's permission, not in its mere shaping from clay, which is something common. Marginal remark/ Creating the bird refers to shaping it, which lies within the human ability; however, the miracle was breathing life into it, which happens by Allah's permission.
The Prophet (ﷺ) cursed the image makers and said: "Those people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Judgment are the image makers." [48] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (5950) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2109).
In the "Sahīh", the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Allah Almighty says: 'Who does a greater wrong than those who try to create something like My creation? Then let them create an atom, let them create a grain of barley.'" [49] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (7559) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2111).
[50] The Third Aspect: Allah said that the Messiah only did such shaping and breathing by His permission, and the Messiah (peace be upon him) said that he did this by Allah's permission. Moreover, Allah said that this is counted among His blessings, which He bestowed upon the Messiah (peace be upon him), as Allah Almighty said: {He was only a slave whom We favored and made him an example for the Children of Israel.} [Surat az-Zukhruf: 59] Allah Almighty said to him: {O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit – as you spoke to people in the cradle and in maturity. I taught you writing, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel. You made something from clay in the shape of a bird by My permission, and breathed into it, and it became a bird by My permission. You healed the born-blind and lepers by My permission, and you brought the dead to life by My permission. I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear signs.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 110] Marginal remark/ The Messiah does this by Allah's permission, which indicates the distinction between both.
All this clearly indicates that he is not Allah; rather, he is the slave of Allah who did this by Allah's permission. This is just like the prophets who did the same thing. It also clearly indicates that the One Who grants permission is different from the one permitted, the One Who teaches is not the one taught, and the One Who bestows blessings upon him, and his mother is neither him nor his mother.
[51] The Fourth Aspect: They said: [By the word "created" He was referring to the Word of Allah united with the human aspect]. Then, they said about his words "by Allah's permission" [By the permission of the Word united with the human aspect]. Marginal remark/ Their contradiction is clear in their considering the one who created and the One Who granted permission as the same, although Allah made a distinction between them.
This shows their contradiction, and their fabricating lies against the Qur’an, as Allah said in the Qur’an that the Messiah shaped from clay the figure of a bird by Allah's permission. So, He differentiated between the Messiah and Allah. He also clarified that Allah was the One Who granted permission to the Messiah; however, they claimed that He meant that the divinity united with the Messiah's humanity was the one who created and who granted permission. So, they deemed the one who created the same One Who granted permission; an interpretation that contradicts the explicit statement of the Qur’an.
[52] The Fifth Aspect: Their saying: "By the word "created" He was referring to the Word of Allah united with the humanity derived from Mary because He said the same on behalf of Prophet Dāwūd (David): 'With the Word of Allah, the heavens and earth were created.'" Marginal remark/ The prophets' statements represent proof against them.
The reply to this is: This text on behalf of David is a proof against you. This is just as the Torah, the Qur’an, and the rest of what has been authentically reported from the prophets represent a proof against you. David (peace be upon him) said: "By the Word of Allah, the heavens and the earth were created." He did not say that the Word of Allah is the Creator, as you said that by "creator" He was referring to the Word of Allah.
The difference between the Creator of the heavens and earth and the Word with which the heavens and earth were created is something clear and known. It is like the difference between the Able and the ability; the Able is the Creator and He created things with His ability, which means that the ability is not the Creator. The same difference applies to the One Who wills and the will, as Allah created things with His will; however, the will is not the Creator.
Moreover, supplication and worship are dedicated to the Creating God not to anything of His attributes. That is why all people say: O Allah, O our Lord, O our Creator, have mercy upon us and forgive us. Whereas no one says: O Words of Allah, forgive us and have mercy upon us. Also no one says: O Ability of Allah, or O Will of Allah, or O Knowledge of Allah, forgive us and have mercy upon us. Allah Almighty creates with His ability, will, and words, yet His attributes are not the Creator.
[53] The Sixth Aspect: The statement of David (peace be upon him): "With the Word of Allah, the heavens and earth were created" conforms with what is mentioned in the Qur’an, the Torah, and other revealed Books; that Allah says for something "Be" and it is. This is mentioned in more than one place in the Qur’an, and in the Torah Allah said: (Let there be such-and-such, let there be such-and-such). [54] Marginal remark/ The Word is Allah's creation, not the Creator, and all prophets agreed upon this. See: Genesis (1: 1-6).
[55] The Seventh Aspect: Their saying: "None is a creator except Allah, His Word, and His Spirit," Marginal remark/ Their contradiction regarding the meaning of the "Word" and the "Spirit".
- If they mean by "His Word": His speech, and by "His Spirit": His life, then these will be among Allah's attributes like His knowledge and His ability. However, none of the prophets referred to Allah's life by the "Spirit of Allah". Thus, whoever interpreted the word "Spirit" that was uttered by any of the prophets to be referring to Allah's life has attributed a lie to this prophet.
- If they mean by "His Word and His Spirit" the Messiah or something that united with the Messiah's human aspect, then the Messiah (peace be upon him) is created just like other prophets, and Allah alone is the Creator.
You may say: If by "Spirit" and "Word" they refer to the attributes of Allah, then these will be counted among His Names. However, if they refer to what is not an attribute of Allah, then, these will be counted among His creatures just like humanity.
Then, it will be said: His words and His life are among His attributes just like His knowledge and His ability. So, Allah alone is the Creator, and His attributes are included among His names and there is no need to be joined with His name by "and", which indicates that Allah has a partner in His creation, whereas Allah has no partner.
Hence, when Allah Almighty said: {Allah is the Creator of all things}, [Surat az-Zumar: 62] everything other than Him became included among His creatures. However, His attributes, like His knowledge, His ability, His will, and His words, are not included as they are counted among His names since they are inseparable from Him. Rather, His beautiful Names refer to His holy Essence that is characterized by such attributes. It is impermissible to refer by His Names to an essence devoid of the attributes of perfection, which does not really exist. The existence of an essence free of attributes is impossible, let alone the existence of Allah's essence devoid of His attributes of perfection, which are inseparable from His Essence. Thus, His Essence cannot exist without such attributes. For this reason, it is not said: Allah and His knowledge created, or Allah and His ability created.
[56] The Eighth Aspect: It is impossible that David (peace be upon him) used the "Word of Allah" to refer to the Messiah, because for all people, the Messiah is the name of a human. However, for them it is the name of divinity and humanity when they united. Unity, according to their beliefs, is an incidental act, and there was neither humanity before unity nor what is called "Messiah". Thus, it becomes known that David did not mean by the "Word of Allah" the Messiah. All they could say is: He meant the Word that was united with the Messiah later. However, the one who created by Allah's permission was the Messiah as mentioned in the Qur’an: {Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those near [to Allah].} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 45] So, the Word he mentioned, with which the heavens and earth were created, is not the Messiah who created from clay the figure of a bird by Allah's permission. Therefore, their taking this as supporting evidence is invalid. Rather, this Word with which the heavens and earth were created did not have a human aspect along with it when it was created, according to all nations' consensus, whereas the Messiah must necessarily include humanity. Hence, it becomes known that he was not referring by the "Word" to the Messiah. Marginal remark/ David's words do not mean that the Word is the Messiah.
[57] They said: (He said in another situation: {The similitude of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 59] He meant by saying: "Like that of Adam" the humanity derived from Chaste Mary because He did not mention here the name of the Messiah; rather, He mentioned only the name of Jesus. And just like Adam was created without sexual intercourse or coitus, the body of the Messiah was created without sexual intercourse or coitus; and as Adam's body experienced death, so did the body of the Messiah. Marginal remark/ The sixth evidence
The following might also be a proof: He also said: Allah bestowed His Word upon Mary, and this conforms with what we, the Christians, say: The eternal creating Word of Allah indwelled in Mary and was embodied in a full human being.
Accordingly, we say: The Messiah had two natures:
A divine nature, which is the nature of the Word and Spirit of Allah.
A human nature, which was derived from Virgin Mary and was united with him.
This is further supported by what Allah Almighty said on behalf of Prophet Moses: "Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" [58] It was said: And on behalf of Prophet David, He said: "And Your Holy Spirit shall not be taken from me." [59] Also, on behalf of Prophet David, He said: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all mouths of them by the breath of His mouth." [60] This does not denote three creators; rather, it is One Creator: The Father and His speech, i.e., His Word, and His Spirit, i.e., His life). [61] See: Book of Deuteronomy (32: 6). See: Book of Psalms (51: 6). See: Book of Psalms (33: 2). This text is not found in the printed Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, except the part that reads: (As this was earlier mentioned...) until the end of the text. See: Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 420).
The reply to this has several aspects, which are:
[62] The First Aspect: The verse where Allah Almighty says: {The similitude of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be,” and he was} is true, as Allah Almighty created this humankind in various manners to manifest His comprehensive ability. He created Adam without a man or a woman, and He created his wife Eve from a man without a woman, as Allah Almighty says: {And created from it its mate.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 1] And He created the Messiah from a woman without a man and created the rest of mankind from a male and a female. The creation of Adam and Eve is more extraordinary than the creation of the Messiah since Eve was created from Adam's rib, which is more outstanding than creating the Messiah in Mary's womb. And the creation of Adam is even more outstanding than both, and he represents the origin of Eve's creation. Marginal remark/ Jesus is the Messiah, and he is a messenger not a god.
That is why Allah likened his creation to Adam's creation. This is more extraordinary than the creation of the Messiah. This is because if Allah Almighty can create Adam from dust, which is not a component of man's body, would it be difficult for Him to create the Messiah from a woman who is originally a human being?! Allah Almighty created Adam from dust and then said to him: "Be" and he was when He breathed into him from His spirit. Similarly, Allah breathed into the Messiah from His spirit and said to him: "Be" and he was. Adam did not become a combination of divinity and humanity when Allah breathed into him from His spirit; rather, he was totally human. The same applies to the Messiah who was totally human as well. Allah Almighty mentioned this verse among other verses that He revealed in relation to the Christians. When the Christians of Najrān went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and held a debate with him over the Messiah, Allah revealed verses concerning this and clarified the truth about which the Jews and the Christians differed. Allah stated that both groups were not telling the truth: one group for exaggeration in revering him, and the other group for dispraising him.
After this verse, He said: {Whoever disputes with you concerning him [Jesus] after the knowledge has come to you, then say, “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars.” Indeed, this is the true narrative, and no one has the right to be worshiped except Allah, and Allah is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. If they turn away, then Allah is All-Knowing of those who spread corruption. Say, “O people of the Book, come to a common term between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and associate no partners with Him, and that we do not take one another as lords besides Allah.” But if they turn away, say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Allah].”} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 61-64]
The Prophet (ﷺ) obeyed Allah's command and invited them to make Mubāhalah (Cursing the liar among the two parties). However, they knew quite well that if they answered him, Allah would descend His curse upon them. Thus, they agreed to pay the Jizyah (protection tax) while being humbled. Then, the Prophet (ﷺ) sent a message to Heraclius, the King of the Romans, mentioning the verse where Allah Almighty said: {O People of the Book} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 64] until its end. Sometimes, he would recite it in the second Rak‘ah (prayer unit) of the Fajr prayer and recite the following in the first Rak‘ah: {Say [O believers], “We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted.”} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136]
By all this, Allah clarifies that the Messiah is a slave not a god and was created in the same manner Adam was created. He commanded that whoever claims that the Messiah is a god should be invited to make Mubāhalah, and each of the two groups involved must call their children, wives, and close relatives, then both must invoke Allah's curse on the liars. So, if the Christians are lying in their saying that the Messiah is Allah, they become worthy of Allah's curse. However, those who say that the Messiah is not Allah; rather, he is the slave of Allah, and are [intentionally] lying, they become worthy of Allah's curse. This is fair enough and it could only be advocated by one who is certain that he is right.
As for the Christians, since they knew that they were not right, they abstained from going for Mubāhalah. So, Allah said after this: {Indeed, this is the true narrative, and none has the right to be worshiped except Allah} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 62], to show that the Christians who say: [He is a true god from a true god] are liars. So, how could it be said: He meant that the Messiah combined both divine and human nature, and here He refers to human nature alone without the divine one?!
This refutes their saying: [He said in another situation: {The similitude of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam.} He meant by saying: "Jesus" the humanity derived from Chaste Mary because He did not mention here the name of the Messiah; rather, He mentioned only the name of Jesus].
In reply to this, we say: Jesus is the Messiah as indicated by His saying: {The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. There were messengers who passed away before him.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 75] So, Allah stated that the Messiah was no more than a messenger and was not a god and was the son of Mary, and the son of Mary is human. He also said: {The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say “Three” [Trinity]. Cease: that is better for you. Indeed, Allah is the only One God. Glory be to Him, [far exalted is He] to have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of Affairs. The Messiah would never disdain to be a slave of Allah, nor would the nearest angels to Him. Those who disdain to worship Him and are arrogant, He will gather them all together before Him.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171-172] Allah Almighty also said: {These are mere words that they utter, imitating the words of the disbelievers before them. May Allah ruin them; how can they be deluded?} [Surat at-Tawbah: 30] Allah Almighty also said: {Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly disbelieved. Say, “Who has the power to prevent Allah, if He chose to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and all those who are on earth?”} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 17]
[63] The Second Aspect: Regarding what they mentioned about his death, we have previously clarified that Allah did not mention this since the Messiah has not died yet. As for what they mentioned about his human nature being crucified apart from his divine nature, it is false in two aspects: his human nature was not crucified, and he had no divine nature. So, what they mentioned is a mere claim, and it is enough to receive this with mere negation. Marginal remark/ The invalidity of their statement regarding his death and crucifixion.
[64] However, in the third aspect we say: Concerning the unity between divine nature and human nature, they compare it once to the mixing of water with milk, which is the simile adopted by the Jacobites. Another time, they compare it to the unity between fire and iron, or the unity between the soul and body, which is the simile adopted by the Melkites and others. Marginal remark/ The false corollaries of the claimed unity
It is known that whatever reaches the water must reach the milk since none of them can be distinguished from the other. The same applies to the fire with the iron; whenever the iron is hammered or is spat on, the same occurs to the fire in it. And when the body is beaten or tormented, the soul experiences the pain resulting from such beating and such torment. Therefore, their simile entails that divine nature was affected, just as human nature was affected, by the Jews' abuse and their tormenting and inflicting pain on him, and by the crucifixion they claimed. This is inevitable in case of unity. However, if unity does not entail that whatever occurs to one must occur to the other, then there is no unity; rather, there is plurality.
[65] The Fourth Aspect: Their saying: "He is His Word and Spirit" is a clear contradiction because they believe in the hypostasis of the Word only, not in the hypostasis of life. Marginal remark/ The contradiction in their claim that Jesus is the Spirit
[66] The Fifth Aspect: If they say: "[The following might also be a proof: He also said]: Allah bestowed His Word upon Mary, and this conforms with what we, the Christians, say: The eternal creating Word of Allah indwelled in Mary and was embodied in a full human being." Marginal remark/ The invalidity of their understanding and interpretation of the Word
We say: As for Allah's words in the Qur’an, they are true; however, you were misguided in its interpretation just as you were misguided in the interpretation of the prophets' words and what they conveyed from Allah, as Allah said: {[Remember] when the angels said, “O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and one of those near [to Allah]. He will speak to people in the cradle and in maturity, and he will be one of the righteous.” She said: “My Lord, how can I have a child when no man has ever touched me?” He said, “Thus Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees something, He only says to it ‘Be’, and it is.”} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 45-47]
Such words clarify, in several aspects, that he is a creature and not what the Christians claim him to be:
- One of these aspects is: He said: {A Word from Him} and using the indefinite article in {a Word} in the affirmative entails that he is one of the words of Allah, not all His words as claimed by the Christians.
- Another aspect is: He clarifies what He means by His saying: {A word from Him} and that he is a creature as He further said: {Thus Allah creates what He wills. When He decrees something, He only says to it ‘Be’, and it is.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 47], and He said in another verse: {The similitude of Jesus before Allah is like that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be,” and he was.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 59]. As He Almighty said in Surat Maryam: {Such was Jesus, son of Mary – a word of truth about which they are in doubt. It is not befitting for Allah to beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.} [Surat Maryam: 34-35]
Those were three verses in the Qur’an making it clear that Allah said to him: "Be" and he was, and this explains how he is a Word from Him.
Allah also said: {Whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 45] Allah stated that he is the son of Mary, that he is honorable in this life and in the Hereafter, and that he is one of those near to Him, all of which are qualities of a creature. However, such qualities cannot be used to describe Allah Almighty and His speech, which is among His attributes.
Mary said: {How can I have a child?} This indicates that the Messiah, who is the Word, is Mary's child, not the child of Allah Almighty.
As Allah said in Surat an-Nisā’: {O People of the Book do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about Allah but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say “Three” [Trinity]. Cease: that is better for you. Indeed, Allah is the only One God. Glory be to Him, [far exalted is He] to have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and sufficient is Allah as a Disposer of Affairs. The Messiah would never disdain to be a slave of Allah, nor would the nearest angels to Him. Those who disdain to worship Him and are arrogant, He will gather them all together before Him. As for those who believe and do righteous deeds, He will give them their rewards in full and will increase them out of His bounty. But those who disdain and act arrogantly, He will subject them to a painful punishment, and they will not find for themselves any protector or helper besides Allah.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 171-173]
Thus, Allah forbade the Christians from going to extremes in their religion and from saying about Allah anything but the truth. He made it clear that the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, is His messenger, His Word, and a spirit from Him and He commanded them to believe in Allah and in His messengers, stressing the fact that he is His messenger. He also forbade them from saying "Three" (Trinity) and said: {Cease: that is better for you. Indeed, Allah is the only One God.} This refutes their claim about the Messiah that he is: [A true god from a true god, from the essence of his father].
Then, He said: {Glory be to Him, [far exalted is He] to have a son}: He glorified and exalted Himself far above having a son - as claimed by the Christians. Then He said: {To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth}; stating that these are counted among His dominion, and nothing thereof is part of His Essence. Then, He said: {The Messiah would never disdain to be a slave of Allah, nor would the nearest angels to Him}, that is to say, they would never disdain to be slaves of Allah Almighty.
Would anyone, after such an evident and manifest clarification, still think that by {His Word} He means that he is a creating god or an inseparable attribute of Allah?! Would anyone still believe that His saying: {a spirit from Him} means that he is His life, or a spirit derived from His Essence?!
We also say: As for His saying: {And His Word}, He explained that He meant by it creating him with "Be". In Arabic, the language in which the Qur’an was revealed, the object is given the name of the infinitive, so the creature is called "creation", as Allah said: {This is Allah’s creation}. That is why what is commanded is called "command", what is decreed is called "decree", what is known is called "knowledge", and one who is used to show mercy is called "mercy". Examples include Allah's saying: {And Allah’s command is a decree firmly determined.} [Surat al-Ahzāb: 38] And His saying: {Allah’s decree is coming, so do not seek to hasten it.} [Surat an-Nahl: 1] ِAnd the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Allah said to Paradise: 'You are My mercy by which I show mercy to whomever I wish of my slaves.' Then He said to Hellfire: 'You are My punishment by which I punish whomever I wish of my slaves.'" He (ﷺ) also said: "Allah made mercy when He created it one hundred parts; He sent down to earth one part, by which creatures show mercy and compassion towards one another. And He retained with Him ninety-nine parts. Then, on the Day of Judgment, He will combine this with those and have mercy upon the creatures." [68] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4850) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2846). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6469) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2752).
It is said about the rain and the signs: This is a great ability. It is also said: May Allah forgive His knowledge about you, i.e., what He knows. So, calling a creature by "Word" is something of this type.
And His saying: {A spirit from Him} does not necessarily mean that he is derived from Allah's Essence, as Allah Almighty said: {And He has subjected for you all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; all is from Him.} [Surat al-Jāthiyah: 13] He Almighty also said: {Whatever blessing you have, it is from Allah.} [Surat an-Nahl: 53] Allah Almighty also said: {Whatever good happens to you is from Allah, but whatever bad happens to you is from yourself.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 79] And He Almighty said: {Those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going to desist [from disbelief] until there came to them clear proof, a messenger from Allah, reciting pure pages.} [Surat al-Bayyinah: 1-2]
[69] All such things are from Allah, and they are all creatures. Even more profoundly, Allah's spirit that He sent to Mary is a creature; thus, the Messiah, who is a spirit from that Spirit, is worthier of being a creature. Allah Almighty said: {Then We sent to her Our Spirit [Gabriel] and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being. She said, “I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you; [do not approach me] if you fear Allah.” He said, “I am only a messenger from your Lord to grant you a righteous son.”} [Surat Maryam: 17-19] Allah Almighty also said: {Also [the example of] Mary, daughter of ‘Imrān who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her through Our angel [Gabriel].} [Surat at-Tahrīm: 12] He also said: {And [remember Mary] who guarded her chastity; We breathed in her [garment] through Our spirit [Gabriel] and made her and her son a sign for all people.} [Surat al-Anbiyā’: 91] So, Allah stated that He breathed into Mary from His spirit, as He stated that He breathed into Adam from His spirit. He also mentioned that He sent her His Spirit {and he appeared before her in the form of a perfect human being. She said, “I seek refuge in the Most Compassionate from you; [do not approach me] if you fear Allah.” He said, “I am only a messenger from your Lord to grant you a righteous son.” She said, “How can I have a son when no man has touched me, nor have I ever been unchaste?” He said, “Thus it will be your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me; We make him a sign for people and a mercy from Us. This matter has already been decreed.’” So she conceived him.} [Surat Maryam: 17-22] Marginal remark/ Meaning of: "A spirit from Him".
This Spirit whom Allah sent to her to grant her a righteous son is a creature himself; he is the Holy Spirit from whom, along with Mary, the Messiah was created. So, if the origin is a creature, then how about the branch that comes to existence through that origin?!
His saying about the Messiah: {A spirit from Him}, He said that about the Messiah alone because He breathed in his mother from His spirit. So, she conceived him because of that breathing, and this is different from his spirit that he shares with all mankind. So, he was distinguished by the fact that his mother conceived him from breathing the spirit in her; hence, he was called "a spirit from Him." That is why, a group of the Qur’an interpreters said [70]: "A spirit from Him" means: a messenger from Him. He named him after the Spirit Messenger who breathed into her. So, just as he is called "Word", he is also called "Spirit" since he was created by the word unlike other human beings. He is called "Spirit" because his mother conceived him by the Spirit breathing into her, not through a normal male like other human beings. Thereupon, it is said: Since he was created from the Spirit's breathing and from Mary, therefore he was called "Spirit", unlike other human beings who are created from a male and a female, then the spirit is breathed into them after four months. See: "Tafsīr at-Tabari" (7/703) and "Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr" (2/479).
Christians say in their Nicene Creed: "He was embodied from Mary and from the Holy Spirit." Had they stopped here and interpreted "the Holy Spirit" as the Angel who breathed into her, and who is the Spirit of Allah, this would have conformed with what Allah stated. However, they considered the "Holy Spirit": Allah's life, and they deemed him a god and held contradictory opinions in this regard. According to what they say, there must be two hypostases in him: the hypostasis of the Word and the hypostasis of the Spirit; nonetheless, they say: He only has the hypostasis of the Word. Just as the Messiah is called "Word" because he was created by the word, he is also called "Spirit" because something of the Spirit indwelled in him.
The bottom line here is that Christians can find no supporting evidence, neither in the explicit meanings of the texts nor in their implicit meanings, as Allah Almighty said: {The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word that He bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit from Him.} According to their beliefs, the "Word" is the essence; it is a god not something used by the Creator to create; rather, it is the creator of everything, as they said in their Book: "The eternal creating Word of Allah indwelled in Mary." Allah Almighty stated, however, that He bestowed it upon Mary and that the Almighty Lord is the Creator, and the Word that He bestowed is not a creator. The Creator is not bestowed by anything; rather, He is the One to bestow upon others.
[The Christians' Creed Regarding the Messiah's Nature]
If they say: [According to this example, we say: There are two natures in the Messiah: a divine nature, which is the nature of Allah's Word and His Spirit, and a human nature, which was derived from Virgin Mary and was united with Him].
We say: The Christians' statements in this regard are confused, diverse, and contradictory. They did not agree on one opinion on this subject, and nothing of what they said here is logical or indicated by a divine Book. Rather, they are divided in this respect into various sects and groups, each sect accuses the other of disbelief. Examples include the Jacobites, the Melkites, and the Nestorians. Statements reported from them in this regard are inconsistent and abundantly diverse. [71] Here Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) clarifies two main ideas: The first: That the Christians' statements concerning [the Messiah's nature], [Trinity], [Unity], and [Indwelling] are tremendously diverse and confused. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) deems the reason for that is the fact that such beliefs were not received from the Messiah in the first place, were not reported from any of the disciples, and were not uttered by any of the prophets. Rather, they adhered to some ambiguous words in their books, but disputed over their meanings. Owing to such controversy over their meanings, they fell into disagreement and perplexity. Second: This disagreement led to the discrepancy among those who reported their doctrine. That is to say: Every one of those who reported the Christians' doctrine on such issues used to report from one of their sects, and since the Christians originally held controversial opinions regarding such issues, this led to the discrepancy of what was reported of their doctrine. That is why, the correct thing that should have been done was to elaborate the Christians' doctrine regarding such issues according to their sects; each sect held a different opinion from the other sects, i.e., not all of them held the same opinion, or to give preponderance to the opinion that truly expressed their beliefs. In fact, the Messiah (peace be upon him) did not bring up such issues in the first place. This is evident and essential disagreement in their principal beliefs indicates their confusion regarding their religion. This fact was frequently stressed by Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) in this book. The second idea made by Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) demonstrates some examples reporting the Christian doctrines like that of Al-Juwayni, Abu al-Qāsim al-Ansāri, Ibn az-Zāghūni, Ibn Hazm, Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb, and Sa‘īd ibn al-Batrīq. However, in this abridgment, we do not need the details in reporting such examples and demonstrating comparisons between these sects. Researchers who are interested could find such details in the original book. See: "Al-Jawāb as-Sahīh" (6/3-17).
[72] The most knowledgeable about their statements were those who were formerly among their scholars and then embraced Islam based on straightforward evidence after being well-informed of the Christians' books and statements. An example of this was Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb, who wrote a message to his brother, ‘Ali ibn Ayyūb, telling him why he embraced Islam and mentioning the evidence on the falsehood of the Christians' religion and the evidence on the soundness of Islam. Marginal remark/ The message of Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb about the Christians' statements regarding the Messiah's nature
He said in his message [73]: (When I examined the Christians' statements, I found a group of them [74] known as Arianism. They believe in the pure Oneness of Allah and acknowledge that the Messiah (peace be upon him) is a slave. They say nothing of what the Christians claim about him for being a god, the son of a God, etc. They adhere to the Gospel of the Messiah (peace be upon him), acknowledging what was brought by his disciples. This category is close to the truth; however, they contradict part of the truth by rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) and what he brought of the Book and the Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) reported the full message of Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb, which is almost ninety pages (106-3/18). In this message, Al-Hasan mentioned various issues and discussed them, clarified their invalidity and the Christians' declaration of polytheism. He also clarified the contradiction between their sects like the Melkites, the Jacobites, and Nestorians. He refuted their reported and rational proofs with their likes. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) commented on a few parts of this message; however, in this abridgment we will only mention the first part of this message, which is related to [the Messiah's nature] and the comment of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) on it. As for the rest of the message, many of the issues it tackled are already included in the original book, so we did not mention them to avoid repetition and prolixity. Marginal remark/ The doctrine of Arianism
He said: Then, I found another group of them known as the Jacobites. They say that the Messiah is one nature made up of two natures: the human nature and the divine nature. Those two natures are combined in the same manner the soul is combined with the body, and they became one human being, one person, and one essence. This one nature and one person is the Messiah, who is totally a god and totally a human. He is one person and one nature composed of two natures. Marginal remark/ The Jacobites' doctrine
They also said that Mary gave birth to Allah, far Exalted is He above what they say, and that Allah died, suffered pain, was crucified while being embodied, and was buried, and then rose from among the dead and ascended to heaven. They said things that, if offered to the heaven, it would break apart, if offered to the earth, it would split asunder, or if offered to the mountains, they would fall. Thus, there was no point in arguing with them since their disbelief, evident in what they declared, is too clear to be doubted and you all testified to this against them.
[76] He said: Then, I examined what was said by the Melkites, who are the Romans and who represent most Christians. They said: The eternal Son, who is Allah's Word, was fully embodied from Mary acquiring a body like all other human bodies. And a full soul, combining reason, knowledge, and science like all other human souls, was installed in this body. He became a human being with the soul and body, which represent the human essence, and he became a god with the divine essence like his eternal Father. He is a human being with a human nature like Abraham and David. He is one person and did not become more than one. The divine essence was affirmed for him just as the human essence, which he acquired from Mary, is still affirmed for him. He is one person and did not become more than one, and he has two natures each of which has a complete will. With his divinity, he possesses a will like that of the Father and the Spirit, and with his humanity, he possesses a will like that of Abraham and David. Marginal remark/ The Melkites' doctrine
They also said: Mary gave birth to a god and the Messiah, a name that combines both divinity and humanity died.
They also said: Allah did not die; however, the one to whom Mary gave birth died with his human essence, as he is a complete god with his divine essence and a complete human being with his human essence. He possesses the divine will as well as the human will and he is one person, we do not say: two persons, so as not to be obliged to acknowledge four hypostases.
He said: Those adopted the same opinion as that of the Jacobites regarding Mary's labor; however, Allah is far Exalted above what the wrongdoers claim.
They said that the Messiah, a name that Christians never doubt to be referring to divinity and humanity together, died but Allah did not die. So, how could one be dead if he did not die?! And how could one be both standing and sitting at the same time?! Is there a difference between the two opinions, except for the part they disagreed over the natures?
[77] He said: Then, I examined what was said by the Nestorians and found that they said: The Messiah is two persons and two natures with one will, and the Messiah's divine nature is different from his human nature. When the divine nature was united with humanity by being embodied in the Word, the two natures became on one side and with one will. Divinity is not liable to increase or decrease and does not mix with anything, whereas humanity is subject to increase and decrease. Thus, the Messiah was a god and a human being. He is a god through divinity that does not increase or decrease, and he is a human having the human essence liable to increase and decrease. Marginal remark/ The doctrine of the Nestorians
They said: Mary gave birth to the Messiah with his humanity, while divinity never parted with him since being united with his humanity.
[78] I said [79]: What reveals their contradiction is their statement: The Messiah - who is divine and human - is one person and one hypostasis despite their statement: They are two essences with two natures and two wills. So, they affirm one hypostasis for the two essences, and they say: He is one person. Then, they say: The Lord of the worlds is one God, one essence, and three hypostases. By this, they affirm three hypostases for one essence, and one hypostasis for two essences even though, according to them, the will of the three hypostases is the same. They affirm for humanity and divinity two wills and two natures. Despite this, they consider them one person and one hypostasis. This indicates an extreme contradiction, whether they interpret the hypostasis as an attribute, a person, or an essence, along with an attribute, or anything else of what they said. Marginal remark/ The Christians' contradiction regarding the Messiah's nature The speaker here is Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him).
He clarifies that those saying such words did not perceive what they said; rather, they were terribly misguided and ignorant. On the contrary, what is said by the prophets is true. This is why, nothing reported from the Messiah or other prophets conforms with their statements about Trinity, the hypostases, Unity, and other things they invented in religion without having verbal or rational evidence. Rather, they fabricated statements that contradict the revealed law and reason.
I said [80]: Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb was among the greatest Christian scholars and the most knowledgeable about their views. Thus, his report of their views is more authentic than others' reports. This is clear in his book where he mentioned what refutes and invalidates their rational and verbal arguments. The speaker here is Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him).
[81] We shall mention along with this the words of those who reported their doctrines from among their scholars who defended Christianity like Ibn Batrīq [82], the Patriarch of Alexandria. He authored a book called "Nazhm al-Jawhar". He mentioned in it the Christians' reports, their councils, their disagreements, and the reason behind what they did, giving predominance to the Melkites' opinion while rebutting those who disagreed with them. Marginal remark/ What Ibn al-Batrīq said regarding their opinions about the Messiah's nature Then, after reporting the message of Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) reported part of the "Tārīkh" of Sa‘īd ibn al-Batrīq, which came in about one hundred and ninety pages (294-3/106). The reason he reported this comes in the context of the second idea that we previously mentioned, namely mentioning the divergence of those who reported the Christians' doctrine. After reporting the message of Al-Hasan ibn Ayyūb, he followed that by reporting what Ibn al-Batrīq said in his "Tārīkh" about the Christians' doctrine and their arguments, their religious history, and their conflicts that led to their beliefs in their ecumenical councils. As mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him), he was one of the prominent Christian scholars who defended Christianity. He was a Melkite; thus, we find him in his "Tārīkh" refuting the statements of other Christian sects like the Nestorians. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) comments on his words and refutes them at length. Another reason for reporting from him is to make the one who reads this "Tārīkh" realize that the majority of the Christians' religion is not taken from the Messiah (peace be upon him), and this is one of the major ideas that was repeatedly confirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) in this book. This also denotes the invalidity of Christianity, proving that their faith code is derived from the innovations of their sects, and that the religion they adopt is not the religion of Allah Almighty that He approves of. Some of the arguments that were mentioned by Ibn al-Batrīq to prove the authenticity of the Christians' religion are included in the Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch, which made Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) author his book "Al-Jawāb as-Sahīh" in the first place to refute it. Mentioning the report of Ibn al-Batrīq in this abridgment will be a cause for prolixity and repetition, hence, we only mentioned what is related to the issue of: [the Messiah's nature] and skipped the rest of the report, which could be referred to in full in the original book.
Sa‘īd ibn al-Batrīq, Patriarch of Alexandria, mentioned in his "Tārīkh", which is well-known to the Christians and which he called "Nazhm al-Jawhar", the beginning of the creation and the chronicles of the prophets, kings, and nations, and the reports of the Roman kings and the officials in Rome, Constantinople, and others. He described Christianity and the Christian sects. Being a Melkite, he responded to all the Christian sects upon mentioning the Messiah's birth and that he was born during the era of the Roman king known as "Caesar Augustus" after forty-two years of the latter's rule had passed.
He said: Constantine became the king after forty-one years of the rule of Sābūr ibn Hurmuz, the King of the Persians.
He said: Constantine converted to Christianity in a city called Nicomedia after twelve years of his rule. He gave orders that churches should be built in every country and that taxes coming from the treasury should be employed in constructing churches.
He said: Within five years of his rule, Alexandros was appointed the Patriarch of Alexandria. He was the student of Peter, its former patriarch, who was killed, and he was the friend of Achillas. He remained for sixteen years. And after fifteen years of his tenure, the Council at Nicaea, where the Orthodox "Amānah" was set in order, was held.
Alexandros, Patriarch of Alexandria, prevented Arius from entering the church and cursed him. He said: Arius is cursed because Peter the Patriarch said to us before he was martyred: Allah has cursed Arius, so, do not accept him and do not admit him into the church.
The one in charge of Asyut, Egypt, was a bishop who adopted the same opinion as Arius, and he was cursed too.
In Alexandria, there was a huge temple, which was built by the queen Cleopatra after the name of the star Zuhal (Venus), and in it was an enormous idol made of copper, called "Michael". The people of Alexandria and Egypt used to hold a major festival on the twelfth of Hatūr (November) for this idol and slaughter lots of sacrifices.
When he became the Patriarch of Alexandria and Christianity gained dominance, he wanted to break the idol and stop the sacrifices.
However, the people of Alexandria refused to obey him, which made him resort to trickery by saying to them: This idol can bring neither benefit nor harm. So, if you dedicated this festival to the Archangel Michael and offered such sacrifices for his sake, that would be better for you in the sight of Allah, and it would be better for you than this idol. They agreed to this. So, he broke the idol and made a cross out of it and called the temple "the Church of Michael". This is the church called "Caesarea" that was burnt at the time the armies of the Moroccans and Qarmatians arrived under the leadership of the so-called "Abu ‘Ubaydullāh". He had with him a prince from among his friends called "Habāsah" during the caliphate of Al-Mu‘tadid Billāh, and his deputy in Egypt at that time was his freed slave "Tikīn al-Hājib", who was a Turkish man. He escaped to the Moroccans and received support from the east with the servant called "Mūnis". Thus, Abu ‘Ubaydullāh, Habāsah and their soldiers ran away from him.
Since then, the festival and the sacrifices became dedicated to the Archangel Michael, and until today, the Christians in Egypt and in Alexandria celebrate the Michaelmas and slaughter many sacrifices on this day. The same applies to the Melkites who still celebrate the Michaelmas on that day, which has become an official festival until the present day.
He said: When the Patriarch of Alexandria prevented Arius from entering the church and cursed him, the latter came out with two bishops and appealed for assistance against him. They sought help from the King Constantine.
[83] Arius said: He transgressed against me and wrongfully expelled me out of the church. Marginal remark/ The Arianism doctrine
The King asked for Alexandros, Patriarch of Alexandria, to be brought in person to debate with him in the King's presence. So, Constantine dispatched a messenger to Alexandria, and he brought the Patriarch in person and arranged a debate between him and Arius. Constantine said to Arius: Explain your view.
Arius said: I say: The Father existed when the Son did not exist. Then, He brought the Son into existence, and he became His Word, yet he is created and a creature. Then, He commissioned this Son, known as the Word, to act on His behalf. Thus, he was the one who created the heavens and earth and what is between them, as he said in his Gospel: "He bestowed upon me power over the heaven and earth". So, he was their creator with the power he was granted. The Word was embodied from Virgin Mary and from the Holy Spirit and it became one Messiah.
So, the Messiah now comprises two meanings: a Word and a body; however, they are both creatures.
He said: The Patriarch of Alexandria, then, replied to him saying: Tell us now, according to you, which one is more obligatory upon us, worshiping the one who created us or the one who did not create us?
Arius said: Worshiping the one who created us.
The Patriarch said to him: So, if our creator is the Son, as you said, and the Son is a creature, then worshiping the created Son is more obligatory upon us than worshiping the Father who is not a creator. Rather, worshiping the Father - the creator of the Son - becomes disbelief, whereas worshiping the created Son becomes faith, and that is the worst of the statements.
The King and all the attendees admired the Patriarch's words and hated what Arius said. The debate between them also tackled many other issues.
Finally, Constantine ordered Patriarch Alexandros to curse Arius and all those who adopt his view.
He said to him: Let the King summon the patriarchs and bishops to hold a council and file a case therein, and curse Arius and explain and clarify the religion to people.
[84] Thus, King Constantine sent for the patriarchs and bishops in all countries, and after one year and two months, two thousand and forty-eight bishops, who held different views and different religions, gathered in the city of Nicaea. Marginal remark/ The Council of Nicaea
Some of them said: The Messiah and Mary are two gods apart from Allah, and these represent Marianism and are called the "Marianites".
Others said: The Messiah in relation to the Father is like a flame of fire that was taken from another flame of fire, but the latter did not decrease when the former was lit from it. This was the view of Sabellius and his followers.
Some others said: Mary did not remain pregnant for nine months; rather, a light flowed in Mary's womb as water flows in a spout because the Word of Allah entered from her ear and immediately came out from where a child is born. This was the view of Elian and his followers.
Others said: The Messiah is a human being created from the human nature as one of us in his essence. The Son was primarily created from Mary, then he was chosen to be the savior of the human essence. The divine blessing accompanied him and indwelled in him in the form of love and will; hence, he was called the "Son of Allah". They also said: Allah is one essence and one hypostasis, and they give Him three names. They do not believe in the Word or the Holy Spirit. This was the view of Paul of Samosata - Bishop of Antioch - and his followers who are the Paulianists.
Some of them said that there are three eternal gods: good, evil, and in between the two. This was the view of Marcion and his followers. They claimed that Marcion was the chief of the disciples.
Others said: Our Lord is the Messiah. This was the view of Paul the Apostle and the view held by the three hundred and eighteen bishops.
He said: When King Constantine heard their views, he pondered over them, and he evacuated a house for them to provide them with accommodation and hospitality. He ordered them to hold debates between themselves, so he could see who was right and follow him.
Three hundred and eighteen bishops from among them agreed on one religion and one opinion. So, they debated the rest of the bishops, who held different opinions, and managed to prove their own arguments and to make the true religion prevail, knowing that the rest of the bishops also adopted different religions and different opinions.
The King established a great special council for the three hundred and eighteen bishops and sat in the middle. He gave them his ring, his sword, and his staff and said to them: Today I give you authority over the kingdom to do whatever you like, to do whatever should be done to guarantee the consistency of the religion and the righteousness of the believers.
They gave the King their blessings and girded him with his sword and said to him: Make the religion of Christianity prevail and defend it.
They wrote for him forty books that included the laws and legislations and what was suitable for the bishops to act upon and what was suitable for the King to act upon.
The head of the council and those given precedence therein were Alexandros, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Bishop of Jerusalem.
The Patriarch of Rome sent two deacons as his delegates. They all agreed that Arius and his companions should be banished, and they condemned him along with all those who adopted his view. They laid down this "Amānah" (Nicene creed) and affirmed that the Son is born of the Father before all creatures and that the Son has the Father's nature and is non-created.
They also agreed to make the Christians' Easter on Sunday that follows the Jews' Easter and not to make it on the same day with the Jews' Easter. They affirmed what was laid down by the one previously mentioned concerning the timing of the fasting and the Easter, and that the Christians' breaking of the fast should be on their Easter, i.e., on Sunday that follows the Jews' Easter. Because when the Christians, as we said before, celebrated Epiphany, they would start fasting on the next day for forty days. Then they would break their fast. And when it was time for the Jews' Easter, they would celebrate that with them. So, they made Easter the day of breaking their fast.
They made it forbidden for the bishop to have a wife, although bishops used to have wives from the time of the disciples until the time of the Council of the three hundred and eighteen. When one was appointed as a bishop and he had a wife, she would stay with him without leaving him, unlike the patriarchs who had no wives. In addition, no one who had a wife was appointed as a patriarch.
He said: They left in an honorable and fortunate condition, and that was in the seventeenth year of Constantine's rule.
He said: King Constantine enacted three laws, which were:
First: Breaking idols and killing whoever worshipped them.
Second: No one should be officially recorded except the Christians' children, and they would be made princes and leaders.
Third: People should stay on the Friday of Easter and the following Friday, not working and not fighting any war.
He said: Then, Constantine requested the Bishop of Jerusalem to find the place of the Messiah's tomb and the cross, and to build churches and start building the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
[85] Helena, mother of King Constantine, said: I vowed to go to Jerusalem and find the sacred places and build them. So, the King gave her a huge amount of money. Marginal remark/ Building the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
She proceeded towards Jerusalem along with the Bishop of Jerusalem, and on arriving there she was keen on nothing but finding the cross.
She gathered the Jews and the residents in Jerusalem and chose ten from them, and out of those ten, she chose three, one of whom was called Judas. She asked them to guide her to the place where the cross was, but they refused and said: We know nothing about it and have no knowledge where it could be.
She commanded that they be thrown in a waterless well. They remained there for seven days without food or water. Then, one of them, whose name was Judas, said to his other two companions that his father had formerly informed him of the place which that woman was seeking and that his grandfather was the one who had informed his father of it.
Consequently, the two men cried out from inside the well: Let us out so we can tell the queen about this man.
They brought them out and they informed the queen of what Judas had told them. Thus, she ordered that he be whipped, and finally he admitted that he knew the place. He went out and on arriving at the place where the tomb and the cranium were - there was a huge dump - he prayed and said: O Allah, if the tomb is in this place, I beseech You to shake this place and bring smoke out of it so I would believe. Thus, this place was shaken, and smoke came out of it, as he asked, and he believed.
Helena ordered that dust be brushed off this place; so, the tomb and the cranium appeared, and three crosses were found. Helena said: How could we identify the Messiah's cross? Nearby, there was an extremely sick person, a hopeless case. So, when the first cross, the second one, and then the third one was put on him, he got up feeling there was nothing wrong with him.
Helena knew that this was the Messiah's cross; so, she put it in a golden case and carried it with her and adorned it the best way she could. She brought out all the Messiah's traces that were buried and carried them to her son, Constantine. She also built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the place where the cross and the cranium were found, and she built the Constantine Church. Then, she left after commanding the Bishop of Jerusalem to build the rest of the churches. This took place in the twenty-second year of King Constantine's rule.
He said: The time gap between the Messiah's birth and finding the cross was three hundred and twenty-eight years.
Sa‘īd said: Constantine had three sons, the oldest of whom was Constantine son of Constantine, and that was at the time when Ardashīr, son of Sābūr, son of Hurmuz became the Persian King, followed by Sābūr, son of Sābūr in the fifth year of Constantine's rule.
He said: In that era, friends of Arius and all those who adopted his view met with King Constantine and tried to leave a good impression on him regarding their religion and views. They said: The three hundred and eighteen bishops who gathered at Nicaea were wrong and deviated from the truth when they said: The Son has the same essence as the Father. So, give your order that this should not be said because it is wrong. The King wanted to do this.
However, the Bishop of Jerusalem wrote to Constantine, the son of Constantine to not accept what Arius' friends said. This is because they were disbelievers who deviated from the truth and who were condemned by three hundred and eighteen bishops. Also, all those who adopt their views were condemned. So, the King accepted his words.
King Constantine, the son of Constantine, then, died after ruling for twenty-four years.
Sa‘īd said: During his era, the story of John, the Patriarch of Antioch, took place. He was nicknamed the "gold-mouthed".
He was succeeded by his son Theodosius the young, who ruled for 42 years since the eleventh year of Yazdegerd son of Bahram's rule.
[86] During his era, Nestorius, to whom the Nestorians' view is attributed, was appointed the Patriarch of Constantinople. Marginal remark/ The Nestorians' doctrine
He said: Nestorius used to say: Virgin Mary is not the mother of a god in reality. Hence, there are two sons:
One of them is a god born of the Father.
The other one is a human born of Mary. This human, who says that he is a Messiah by love, is united with the son of God. He is called: a god and the son of God. This is not in the real sense; rather, it is a gift and the concordance of the two names and honor, like one of the prophets.
His statement reached the Patriarch of Alexandria who rejected it and wrote to him reprimanding him for what he did and what he said. He informed him of the falsity of his belief and asked him to come back to the truth. A lot of correspondence took place between them; however, Nestorius did not retract his statement.
He then wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch asking him to write to Nestorius and let him know how bad his act and opinion were and how false his statement was, asking him to come back to the truth.
He informed Nestorius in writing that they would capture him and condemn him if he did not come back to the truth. So, a lot of correspondence took place between them, but he did not retract his words.
They wrote to the Patriarch of Rome, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem to gather in the city of Ephesus to discuss Nestorius' statement.
Two hundred bishops, led by the Patriarch of Alexandria, gathered in the city. The Patriarch of Antioch was late, so they did not wait for him. They sent to Nestorius, but he did not attend with them. Thus, they investigated what he said and decided that he must be condemned. So, they condemned and banished him and affirmed that Virgin Mary is the mother of a god, and that the Messiah is a true god and a human being known by two natures united in the hypostasis.
This is contrary to love because Nestorius used to say: Tahayyud - i.e., unity - means: concordance of the two sides, whereas Tahayyud - i.e., straight unity - means: being one hypostasis of two natures.
John, the Patriarch of Antioch, arrived after they had already condemned Nestorius without waiting for his attendance, which made him furious; so, he said: You have wronged Nestorius and have unfairly condemned him. He gave Nestorius his support and gathered the bishops who came with him and shunned the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishop of Ephesus.
When the companions of the Patriarch of Alexandria saw how bad he had acted, a great rift occurred among them, and they departed from Ephesus. The companions of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Eastern bishops were divided into two parties. However, King Theodosius managed to reconcile between them.
The Eastern bishops wrote a scroll affirming therein the sound Nicene Creed and said in it: Saint Mary the Virgin gave birth to a god; our lord Jesus Christ, who shares his Father's nature and shares with people the human nature. They affirmed two natures and one person and one hypostasis, and they condemned Nestorius. They presented the scroll to the Patriarch of Alexandria, who accepted it and responded by agreeing with its content.
Some people said: When he accepted the scroll of the eastern bishops, he did not accept the idea of the two natures and one person.
Sa‘īd ibn al-Batrīq said: They lied about this, as his books speak about this.
Then, he sent a copy of the scroll of the eastern bishops to a group of bishops informing them that the eastern bishops had reverted to faith and were no longer in agreement with Nestorius; rather, they agreed with what was declared by the Second Council of the one hundred and fifty bishops who gathered in Constantinople and condemned Macedonius.
He said: The time gap between the Second Council and this Council of the two hundred bishops who gathered in Ephesus against Nestorius is fifty-one years.
He said: When Nestorius was banished, He went to Egypt and lived in a village in Upper Egypt called Akhmim, where he died and was buried there.
His views were vanished; however, they were revived - after a long time - by the Metropolitan of Nusaybin during the era of Justinian, the king of Romans, and Kavad son of Peroz, the King of Persians. He spread such views in the East. Thus, the number of Nestorians in the East increased especially in the Persian land in Iraq, Mosul, Euphrates, and the Peninsula.
[87] Sa‘īd ibn al-Batrīq said: [I thought I should respond to the Nestorians here and clarify the invalidity and falsity of their views because the Nestorians, in our age, went against the old view of Nestorius and claimed that Nestorius used to say: The Messiah is two essences and two hypostases, a complete god with his hypostasis and essence, and a complete human being with his hypostasis and essence. Marginal remark/ Ibn al-Batrīq's response to the Nestorians
Mary gave birth to the Messiah in his human nature not in his divine nature because, according to them, the Father begot a god and did not beget a human; however, Mary gave birth to a human and did not give birth to a god.
It should be said to them: If what you say is true, then, the Messiah is two Messiahs and two sons: a Messiah who is a god and the son of a God, and a Messiah who is a human and the son of a human, since it should either be that Mary gave birth to the Messiah or did not give birth to him.
If she had given birth to him, it must either be a spiritual or a physical birth.
If he is a body, then he is different from the one begotten by the Father, which entails that there must be two Messiahs.
If he is a spirit, then, the Messiah is one Son, one hypostasis, and one Messiah.
The proof of this is: The iron plate that is united with the fire becomes one sword that burns, deters, cuts, and shines. It is impossible for the iron side to be the burning and lighting side without the fire side, since the iron without the fire cannot burn and the fire alone cannot cut or deter, as the fire is known to light up and burn, not to cut. By this it is proven that the Melkites' belief is true that the Messiah is one hypostasis, whereas the Nestorians' view is fake that the Messiah is two hypostases. [88] Here ends the quote of Ibn al-Batrīq.
[89] I said [90]: It should be said to this one: Although the view of both the Nestorians and the Melkites are false, the Melkites' view is even more false, more blasphemous, and more contradictory, and what he mentioned is false. Marginal remark/ Ibn Taymiyyah's discussion of Ibn al-Batrīq's response The speaker here is Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him).
As for his saying: [If what you say is true, then the Messiah is two Messiahs].
We say: This is necessary only if the divine nature alone was called a Messiah. The Nestorians agreed with them on a falsity, namely that the Lord begot a god, which is false. None of the prophets ever said in the Gospel or elsewhere: The inseparable attribute of Allah is begotten, or the Lord has a pre-existing and eternal child. However, if this is assumed to be true, none has ever called the attribute of Allah a "Messiah".
On the other hand, if it is assumed that divine nature and human nature are two essences and two hypostases without unity between them, then it is not a prerequisite that the divine nature is a Messiah, or that there is a Messiah who is a god or a Messiah who is the son of a God.
It was previously mentioned that Nestorius used to say: This human - about whom we say that he is a Messiah - is united through love with the son of God and he is called a god and the son of a God. However, this is not in the real sense; rather, it is a gift.
He explicitly said that the Messiah is just a human without the divine nature and that the Messiah is neither a god nor the son of a God in the real sense. Thus, this no longer entails that there must be two Messiahs.
As for his saying: [It must either be that Mary gave birth to the Messiah or she did not give birth to him].
We say: Indeed, she gave birth to the Messiah, the human who is different from the divine whom you claim to be begotten of the Father. Moreover, this does not entail the existence of two Messiahs; rather, it is one Messiah, who is a created human being.
Furthermore, his saying: [If she had given birth to him, he must have been either a spirit or a body. If he is a spirit, then the Messiah is one Son, one hypostasis, and one Messiah]. This is a false classification and an invalid and refutable argument.
Mary did not undergo a spiritual labor; rather, the child was born from her vagina in the same way women normally give birth to children, whether her virginity was maintained or not.
As for the example of the iron plate that he mentioned, if it is assumed to be an identical example, it will not be a proof of the soundness of their view; rather, it can only be a proof of its possibility.
Where is the proof that this is the reality? It has nothing that indicates the soundness of the Melkites' view and the invalidity of their opponents' view. Even more, how could this be when the example is not identical in the first place?!
When fire is united with iron, the latter changes in terms of its properties. Thus, it no longer remains pure iron or pure fire. Similarly, if wood and other things are burnt and become fire, it does not become pure wood or pure fire.
When two things are united, each of them changes into a third essence, which is neither of the two. This is like water and milk; when they are mixed, they turn into a third essence and third nature, not pure milk, or pure water. The same applies to fire with iron, wood, or other things. It becomes a third essence that is not pure iron, pure wood, or pure fire. However, when the iron cools, it remains iron, but its essence is changed. Fire makes iron malleable and removes its filth, and iron does not remain as it was before being united with fire. As for wood, it turns into coal, which is a third essence. It is the nature of fire to affect the body it encounters according to the nature of that body. So, it affects iron according to its nature and affects wood according to its nature.
Any two things that are united turn into a third essence, third hypostasis and a third nature.
If the divine nature and the human nature were united, as they claimed, then the attributes of the divine nature and those of the human nature would have changed. So, the divine nature no longer remained a divine nature and the human nature no longer remained a human nature. Rather, they both turned into a third essence that was neither divine nor human. They, however, deny this view, which is false.
Indeed, the Lord of the worlds does not change, and His attributes are not replaced with the attributes of created beings. The eternal being and any of His attributes do not turn into created beings, and the Eternal, the Lord and the Creator, along with the created being, do not turn into a third thing.
In other words, the attributes of the Lord do not transform, convert, or change, let alone turn into a third entity.
Moreover, if this third entity were an eternal creator, then there would be two eternal creators.
On the other hand, if he were a created creature, then the Creator would become a created creature, although it is known that the idea of the Creator turning into another creator or into a creature is surely and clearly impossible.
What clarifies this is that the example they gave of the overheated piece of iron with fire represents a third essence where its fire experiences exactly what its iron experiences. So, if hammered, the hammering falls on its fire as well as on its iron, and the same happens if cut or spit on or if thrown in water.
If this example is identical, then this means that what happened to the human nature also happened to the divine nature. This means that the Lord of the worlds was the one eating, drinking, urinating, and defecating. He was the one slapped and spat on his face and upon whose head thorns were put. He was the one whipped, crucified, died, and suffered pain, the like of which is recounted from the Jacobites.
This is necessary for whoever adopts the opinion of Unity. Even the Nestorians if they said that they are both united through the will, i.e., the will of this is the same will of that, unlike the case if they said: His will conforms with his will, but it is not the same will. That is why Allah Almighty said: {They have certainly disbelieved, those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.” But the Messiah said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates any partners with Allah, Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and his abode will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers. They have certainly disbelieved, those who say, “Allah is one of Three.” None has the right to be worshiped except One God. If they do not desist from saying this, those who disbelieve from among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment. Why do they not turn to Allah in repentance and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. There were messengers who passed away before him, and His mother was a woman of truth; they both ate food. See how We make Our signs clear to them yet see how they are deluded!} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 72-75] This is because this is among the most evident proofs that they are both creatures and slaves, whereas He is the Creator, the One, and the Eternal Refuge, Who neither eats nor drinks.
He mentioned Mary along with the Messiah because some Christians consider her a god and worship her as they worship the Messiah. Many of those who do not believe in her divinity ask her everything Allah is asked of, they would even say to her: Forgive me and have mercy upon me and the like, based on the belief that she could intercede on their behalf with her son.
Sometimes they would say: O mother of God, intercede with God on our behalf. Another time they would ask her things that would normally be asked of Allah without mentioning the intercession. Others worship her as they worship the Messiah.
[91] [It was, thus, known that their saying]: (According to this example, we say: There are two natures in the Messiah: a divine nature, which is the nature of Allah's Word and His Spirit, and a human nature, which was derived from the Virgin Mary and was united with Him) [92] [is nothing but] one of the Christians' views and they have other views that contradict this one. Each of their groups accuse the other of disbelief since they are not upon a view they received from the Messiah and the disciples; rather, they adopt views invented by some of them who went astray and were the cause of misleading others, as Allah Almighty said: {Say, “O People of the Book, do not exceed the limits of the truth in your religion, nor follow the desires of people who went astray before, and misled many and themselves strayed from the straight path.”} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 77] Marginal remark/ The difference of Christians regarding the nature of the Messiah Its reference is previously mentioned. See: (p. 442).
Allah Almighty mentioned that they went astray before the beginning of Muhammad's (ﷺ) mission. Christians are a nation whose source of misguidance is ignorance. A Christian internally or externally cannot accept that he is misguided and ignorant about his God and about the origin of his religion, not knowing Whom he worships and how he should worship Him, despite the diligence that some of them show in worship, like asceticism and adopting noble morals.
Then it is said about them: Their saying: "Two natures," and they also say: "He has two wills," as they say: "He is one person and did not become more than one." They say: "They were both united," as mentioned in their book. They do not say "two persons" so as not to be obliged to acknowledge four hypostases.
Some of them say: "Two essences",
while some say: "He is one essence."
If they said: "One essence," it would be like the view of the Jacobites, especially that they say: Mary gave birth to the divine and the human, and the Messiah is a name that combines both, and he is a complete god and a complete human.
If it is one essence, this entails that the divine nature as well as the human nature have altered and changed, as both have become one. This third thing is not pure human and not pure god; rather, it combines humanity and divinity even though the human and the God were two different entities. According to their terminology, they are two essences. So, if the two essences become one, this necessarily entails that this third thing is not a pure god and not a pure human and not two essences: a human and a god, as these are two essences and not one essence. Rather, it is a third thing that merged and mixed and was transformed from this and that. This means that the two essences of the divine and the human changed and became this third essence, which is not pure divine and not pure human, and this is what normally happens in case of unity.
As in the case of every two things that are united and turn into one essence, there must be transformation like in the case of the unity of water with milk, wine and all other things that mix with water. This is unlike water and oil that continue to be two essences as they were since the oil just becomes adjacent to the water and floats on it without being united with it. This is also like the mixing of fire and iron, as the latter is transformed from its former status, but when it cools, it returns to its previous state. The same applies to the unity of air with water or dust turning into steam, or the like.
To sum up, all cases of unity that people know, when the two become one and duality ceases to exist, must undergo transformation.
If it is said: The two natures and the two wills are in him, as in the case of the water with the milk: they have the power of the water and the power of the milk.
We say: This inevitably leads to the change of each power and breaks down in all forms of unity. If one thing is united with another, each of them breaks the power of the other from its former state. An example of this is when cold water is united with hot water. In this case, both powers; that of heat and that of cold, break down and become weaker than before in an intermediate state between pure coldness and pure hotness. The same applies to water with milk and all forms of unity.
Therefore, if unity occurs, the power, nature, and will of the divine must change from its former state and the power, nature, and will of the human must change as well. This united entity will be a mixture of divinity and humanity, which entails that the divine becomes deficient and no longer remains perfect and entails that the human becomes perfect in a way he was not before.
Whatever they ascribe to the human being united with the divine, it entails deficiency in the divine and decreasing its exclusive perfection and invalidating its perfect attributes depending on how the human aspect affected it due to such unity. However, if the divine nature remains unchanged, then there is no unity in any way. Rather, the human aspect will also remain unchanged, and both will remain two without being united and without becoming one thing.
Moreover, if the essence is one, then the will must be one and the nature must be one. However, if there are two wills, then one will lie in the same entity where the other will lies along with the contradiction between the requirements of the two wills. This means the concurrence of the two opposites in one place. Whereas the human will requires eating, drinking, worshiping, fasting, and praying, the divine will necessarily prevents willing such things. His willing is creating, providing with sustenance, and maintaining the affairs of the world, which is a will that the human does not possess.
So, if the two types of willing and the two types of hating gather in one entity, this means that such an essence combines the two opposites from several aspects. This is because they are willing something and at the same time not willing it and hating something and at the same time not hating it.
It is impossible for one entity to have two assertive wills for something and its opposite, or two assertive disinclinations for something and its opposite. In fact, an act cannot be done except with an assertive will along with an ability. As for the divine, whatever He wills will be, and whatever He does not will, will not be; whenever He wills something assertively, He can do whatever He wills. On the other hand, humans cannot do anything of what is human except by willing that assertively.
It is impossible for humans to have a will on behalf of the will of the divine, and they dislike this. So, the one united thing becomes willing assertively to do something and can do it, and at the same time unwilling to do it and incapable of doing it.
This also entails that if they are both one essence and he was born, slapped, beaten, crucified, died, and suffered pain that the divine itself was beaten, crucified, died, and suffered pain as the Jacobites say. This is binding on all Christians, and it is a prerequisite for the faith of their creed.
If they say: Rather, they are two essences despite the fact that, according to them, they are one person and not more than one, as claimed by the Melkites, then such statements are contradictory because the one person who is not more than one is one essence, and that is why he is defined as one body.
If they compare this to the soul with the body, they are obliged to adhere to the definition. Since the human being is described as one person, he is also described as one essence owing to the unity between them, so he is defined as a completely sensitive body, driven by the will, and a speaking body. This includes his body and soul, which have one will. So, whenever man assertively wills to do something and can do it, he does it, and he has no other essence with a different will than his will.
So, if they compare the unity between the divine and the human to this, it becomes obligatory upon them to say that they are one essence and one will, which is the view held by the Jacobites. This is why the soul suffers when the body is in pain and likewise the body, represented in the pine-shaped heart, suffers when the soul is in pain. So, if the soul is in pain, the heart and the rest of the body suffer pain. Similarly, if the body is in pain, if it is slapped, crucified and spat on his face, if thorns are placed on him, if he suffers pain and dies, all this will occur to the soul, which will have its share of the insult of slapping and its share of the pain from dying, as they acknowledge that this occurred to the Messiah and his body. They do not dispute that both the body and soul of the Messiah underwent pain; rather, they dispute about the divine nature, although the soul departs the body by death whereas the divinity, according to them, did not depart the human by death; rather, it ascended to heaven. The Messiah, who is a complete god and a complete human being, sits on the right of his Father and this is how he will come on the Day of Judgment.
Furthermore, when the body has the soul inside it, its traits and states change, and its conditions vary with the soul's presence and its separation. Likewise, when the soul is in the body, its traits and states vary. Hence, the Messiah's human nature must necessarily differ from other human natures in terms of its traits and states, and the divine nature must have necessarily changed in terms of its traits and states when it was united with him. This is what is meant by the transformation, change, and alteration of traits. However, the Messiah's human nature was like other human natures, showing no signs different from those that others showed; in fact, others have shown more supernatural signs than him.
To sum up, every example they gave of unity turns into an argument against them and exposes the invalidity of their view.
If they say: This is something inconceivable; rather, it is beyond the mind's ability. The reply to this will be from two aspects:
First: It is necessary to differentiate between what the mind acknowledges to be invalid and impossible and what the mind cannot imagine or perceive. The first is rationally impossible, whereas the second is rationally perplexing. The Messengers convey information about the second; however, the first cannot be said except by a liar, and if it had been possible to say this, then it would have been possible to say: The same body could be white and black at the same time and it could be present in two places at the same time, and the same object could be existent and non-existent at the same time, in addition to similar examples that are rationally deemed impossible. What Christians say is identified by obvious reason as invalid, not as something unimaginable. This is further clarified by the fact that if someone says about Mary, the mother of the Messiah: She is Allah's wife and He married her rationally, as they say: [The Messiah was rationally born], this will not be more mentally invalid than what they already said about the Messiah; however, they accuse whoever says this of disbelief arguing that it is rationally invalid.
If, on the other hand, someone says: "This is beyond the mind's ability," they will not accept it. Similarly, each of their sects has used reason in its argument against other sects, and if they say: "Our view is beyond the mind's ability," their reply is not accepted.
If this is a correct reply, then nothing related to divinity should be subject to reason; rather, every liar would tell whatever lies he wishes and then say: [My words are beyond the mind's ability] like those who hold the views of incarnation, unity and union say: The Creator's existence is the creature's existence, and say that this is beyond the mind's ability and can only be perceived by taste, not by verbal or rational evidence.
Second: It should be said: If what the mind is unable to imagine is told by the prophets (peace be upon them), it should be accepted from them because they know what others are unable to know.
However, the prophets said nothing of such statements; rather, the Christian sects themselves were those who produced such statements that conform with their views and claimed that they deduced them from some of the words of the Books.
In reply to those who said so from among them, it should be said: Can you imagine what you say, or you are unable to imagine, understand, or perceive it?
If he says: I cannot imagine, understand, or perceive what I say.
We say: You have said about Allah that which you do not know and have followed that of which you have no knowledge. One of the gravest abominable things that are forbidden in all the revealed laws is to say something about Allah, according to his opinion, what he cannot imagine or understand. All rational people know that whoever says something that he cannot imagine or understand, his statement is to be rejected and not accepted and it is dispraised falsehood.
However, if one of them says: I understand, imagine, and perceive what I say.
We say: Then, clarify it to others so they can understand it, perceive it, and imagine it, and do not say it is beyond the mind's ability, since it is something that you managed to perceive and understand.
This is a division that they cannot escape, i.e., if they understand and perceive what they say, it entails being logical, or if they cannot understand or perceive it, it entails their saying about Allah what they do not understand or perceive and which conforms to their views and minds, not a verbal report from the prophets. Whoever quotes what is authentically reported from the prophets is not required to understand and perceive what he quotes, that is why the Prophet (ﷺ) said: (May Allah grant beauty to the one who hears a Hadīth from us and then conveys it to those who did not hear it, for perhaps the one who bears knowledge is not well-versed in it and perhaps the one who bears knowledge conveys it to one who is more knowledgeable than him.) [93] Indeed, one may memorize words and convey them to others while he does not understand or perceive their meaning. Narrated by Abu Dāwūd in his "Sunan Collection" no. (3660) and at-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (2656).
Thus, whoever quotes words from the Torah, Gospel, or the Qur’an or quotes words from any of the prophets, is not required to clarify its meaning, unlike the one who claims to understand what was said by the prophets and expresses that in different words. It should be said to such a person: If you understood what they said, then it should be one meaning that they expressed in certain words, and you expressed in different words like the interpreter. Such a person perceives and understands what he says.
However, if he says: I did not understand their words, or I did not understand what I said, then he admits his ignorance and misguidance and that he is one of those who did not understand what the prophets (peace be upon them) said and did not perceive what they themselves said.
If they say: We did not understand the prophets' words and kept quiet, they will be like others who are ignorant about the meanings of the prophets' words. However, if they added words and statements, which they invented, and ordered people to believe in them and said: This is faith and monotheism, and said at the same time: We cannot imagine, understand, or perceive what we said, then, these are among those who say about Allah that which they do not know and who attribute lies to Allah, to the Books of Allah, and to the Prophets of Allah without knowledge. Rather, they tell blatant lies and clear disbelief and say: We cannot understand it. This is indeed the state of the Christians.
[Chapter Five: The claim that Christians are monotheists and that words of the Trinity are like affirming divine attributes]
[1] Someone recounted from them saying: (I said to them: They say to us: If you believe that the Almighty Creator is One, then what made you say: A Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, giving listeners a false impression that you believe Allah to be three combined persons, or three gods, or three parts, and that He has a son. This makes whoever does not know your beliefs think that you mean by that a son who is begotten through sexual intercourse and reproduction. By this, you bring upon yourselves an accusation you are innocent of. Marginal remark/ The Christians' claim that Trinity is like establishing the divine attributes
They said (2): And they too (3) if they believe that the Great Creator has no body, organs, or limbs, and that He is not restricted to a certain place, then what made them say: He has two eyes with which He sees, two hands that He stretches out, a shin, a face that He turns to all places, and a side, and that He would come in shadows of clouds; giving the listeners a false impression that Allah has a body, limbs, and organs, and that He moves from one place to another in shadows of clouds. This makes whoever does not know their beliefs think that they anthropomorphize the Creator, as some of them even came to believe in this and adopted it as their doctrine, and whoever does not know their beliefs will accuse them of that which they are innocent of. i.e., the Christian scholars. i.e., the Muslim scholars.
He said: I said to them: They say: The reason they say this: that Allah has two eyes, two hands, a face, a shin, and a side, and that He would come in shadows of clouds is that the Qur’an talked a little about His description, and that it refers to something different from the apparent meaning of the words. And whoever interprets this according to the words' apparent meaning and thinks that Allah has two eyes, two hands, a face, a side, limbs, and organs and that His essence moves from one place to another, they condemn him and deem him a disbeliever. So, if they consider those who believe so as disbelievers, then their opponents have no right to accuse them of that which they do not believe in.
They said: The same applies to us, the Christians, as well. The reason we say: "Allah is three hypostases: a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit" is that it is mentioned in the Gospel.
The hypostases do not refer to combined persons, parts, or pieces or anything that entails polytheism and multiplication. As for the Father and the Son, they do not refer to fatherhood and sonship that result from marriage, reproduction, sexual intercourse, or coitus. Whoever thinks that the three hypostases refer to three different gods, or three parallel gods, or three integrated bodies, or three separate parts, or three combined persons, or incidental attributes, or powers or anything else that entails partnership, multiplication, division, and comparison, or sonship resulting from marriage or reproduction, or coitus or sexual intercourse, or a wife's labor, or from some bodies, some angels, or some creatures; we condemn him, deem him a disbeliever, and consider him a criminal.
Since we condemn and consider whoever believes so a disbeliever, therefore, our opponents have no right to accuse us of that which we do not believe in. However, if they accuse us of polytheism and comparison because we say: "A Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit", as their apparent meaning entails multiplication and comparison, we will also accuse them of anthropomorphism and comparison for their saying: "Allah has two eyes, two hands, a face, a shin, and a side, and His essence moves from one place to another, and He rises above the Throne after not being on it," and other things that apparently entail anthropomorphism and comparison). [4] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 422-423).
The reply to this has several aspects, which are:
[5] The First Aspect: We say: Whoever believes in what the Messengers brought and what they said, without distorting its wording or its meaning, is not to be blamed. On the contrary, whoever invents statements that were not uttered by the Messengers; rather, he contradicts what they said, and distorts what they said, either its wording or its meaning or its meaning alone, is worthy of blame according to the consensus among the sects. Marginal remark/ Establishing divine attributes is an unquestionable truth, and it is not like the Christians' hypostases
The main principle in the Muslims' religion revolves around their describing Allah with what He described Himself in His Books and with what His messengers described Him, without Tahrīf (distortion), Ta‘tīl (negation), Takyīf (asking about their nature or manner), or Tamthīl (likening). Rather, they affirm for Allah Almighty what He affirmed for Himself and negate from Him what He negated from Himself, while following His messengers' statements and avoiding whatever contradicts what they said. Allah Almighty said: {Glory be to your Lord, the Lord of Might, far above what they ascribe [to Him]}, i.e., far above what the disbelievers, who oppose the Messengers, ascribe to Him. {And peace be upon the messengers}, for He is free of what they allege of deficiency and flaws. {And all praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.}
The Messengers described Allah with the attributes of perfection. They exalted Him above all deficiencies that contradict perfection and above having an equal in any of the attributes of perfection. They affirmed for Him the attributes of perfection in detail and negated any resemblance from Him. Thus, they brought detailed affirmation and brief negation. So, whoever negates from Allah what He established for Himself of the attributes is a Mu‘attil (one who negates), and whoever deems it like the creatures' attributes is a Mumaththil (one who likens). As for the Mu‘attil, he worships nonexistence, whereas the Mumaththil engages in idol worship. Allah Almighty says: {There is nothing like unto Him.} This is a refutation of the Mumaththil's claim, {and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing}, which is a refutation of the Mu‘attil's claim.
The like of what was mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah regarding establishing Allah's attributes, was also mentioned in the Torah and other Books of Allah. It is a matter upon which all the Messengers agreed, and the People of the Book are like Muslims in this regard.
Despite that, however, they did not say in their "Amānah" (Nicene Creed) what the Messiah and other prophets had said; rather, they invented a creed that was not conveyed by the prophets. None of the prophets, neither the Messiah nor others, mentioned the hypostases of Allah, neither three nor more, or establishing three attributes. None of them mentioned anything about calling any of Allah's attributes: the son of Allah or a lord or calling His life: a spirit. They said nothing about Allah having a son who is [a true god from a true god, from the essence of his Father] and who is a creator as Allah is a Creator, in addition to other statements that involve several types of disbelief that were not reported from the prophets.
They said in their faith code: [We believe in Allah, the Father, the Master of everything, the Maker of what is seen and what is unseen], which is true.
Then, they said: [And we believe in the one Jesus Christ, the only Son of Allah, the first of all creation, born and not made, a true god from a true god, from the essence of his Father, a light from light, equal to the Father in essence; with whose hands the worlds were perfected and everything was created, the one who, for our sake - humans - and for the sake of our salvation, descended from heaven and was embodied from the Holy Spirit and from Virgin Mary and became a human, who was conceived by and born of Virgin Mary. He suffered pain and was crucified and buried. Then, on the third day he rose, as written, and ascended to heaven and sat on the right of his Father. He is ready to come once again to judge between the dead and the living. We also believe in the Holy Spirit who gives life, the Spirit of the Truth emanating from his Father, or the one who comes from his Father as the Spirit of the one who gives him life.] [6] See: The law of faith in the book of "Al-Bāba Athanasius ar-Rasūli" by Mīna Badī‘ (p.35), and "Orthodoxy is a Law of Faith for All Ages" by Father Anthony M. Coniaris (p.26).
What part of the prophets' speech indicates that any of Allah's attributes or creatures is described as: a hypostasis, a true god from a true god, from the essence of his Father, equal to Allah in the essence, the creator of everything, that he sat on the right of Allah above the Throne and that he is the one who will judge between people on the Day of Judgment? What part of the prophets' speech indicates that Allah has an eternal and pre-existent son? Who is the one who called Allah's speech, knowledge, or wisdom: His child or His son, or who called any of His attributes: His child or His son? Who among the prophets said: He was born yet he is eternal and pre-existent? What part of their speech indicates that Allah has a third hypostasis, which is His life, and which is called [the Holy Spirit], who is also a true god who gives life?
Had the Christians believed in the texts reported from the prophets, as the believers did, they would not have been worthy of blame, and whoever objects to what the prophets said, it is because of his erroneous understanding and his deficient knowledge. However, they invented statements and beliefs that were not reported by any of the prophets (peace be upon them), which involve explicit disbelief and clear contradiction. If we assume that they intended by such statements a sound meaning, none has the right to invent words not uttered by a prophet and which indicate contradicting disbelief that oppose the revealed law and reason, and then says: I only intended by that a sound meaning, while its wording does not denote this. So, how about the case when the meaning they interpret from their words is false and contradictory as previously mentioned?!
In other words, they invented false statements and gave false interpretations of these statements. Hence, the reply to this was supposed to be from each of the two aspects. In this regard, they are like some of the Muslim atheists who believe in the divinity of some of the Prophet's household or some sheikhs and describe Allah with attributes not mentioned in any divine book. According to Muslims, these are atheists unlike the believers who believed in Allah and in His messengers and in what the prophets said and did, not in invented statements, which were not originally uttered by the prophets, and did not make them the core of their religion.
[7] The Second Aspect: We say: What you mentioned about Muslims is nothing but obvious lies about them, as such statements they mentioned are neither in the Qur’an nor in the Hadīth. No renowned Muslim scholar or famous Muslim sect is known to say such statements that they recount about Muslims, as they said: They say: "Allah has two eyes with which He sees, two hands that He stretches out, a shin, a face that He turns to all places, and a side." Rather, such people put together words from the Qur’an - out of their misconduct - and produced a formulation and claimed that Muslims say it, although nothing in the Qur’an indicates what they mentioned. Marginal remark/ The Christians' report of the Muslims' beliefs regarding the establishment of the divine attributes is false and distorted
Allah Almighty said in His Book: {The Jews say, “Allah’s Hand is restrained.” Their hands have been restrained and they have been cursed for what they say. Rather, His both Hands are wide open, spending as He pleases.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 64] The Jews meant by saying: (Allah's Hand is restrained) that He is stingy; however, Allah exposed their lie in this regard and clarified that He is generous and never stingy by saying that both His Hands are wide open. Allah also said: {Do not be too tight-fisted, nor too open-handed.} [Surat al-Isrā’: 29]
Thus, keeping the hands wide open is meant to denote generosity and giving, not what they claimed of merely stretching them out. Since giving with the hand requires stretching it out, it became linguistically known that the expression of "stretching out the hand" denotes giving. Thus, when the Jews said: {Allah's Hand is restrained}, they meant by that His being stingy. Allah exposed their lie and clarified that He is Generous and Glorious. This affirms the mention of the Hands of Allah already existed in the Torah and in other divine books as it exists in the Qur’an.
So, nothing in this contradicts what was brought by the Messengers or contradicts reason. Moreover, Allah Almighty said to Iblīs: {What prevented you from prostrating to whom I created with My two Hands?} [Surat Sād: 75] Thus, He said that He created Adam with His two Hands.
As for the "two Eyes", it is not mentioned in the Qur’an, but it is mentioned in a Hadīth. Al-Ash‘ari stated that the scholars of Sunnah and Hadīth say: (Allah has two Eyes). [8] However, the following is mentioned in the Qur’an: {So that you would be brought up under My [watchful] Eye.} [Surat Taha: 39] {Construct the Ark under Our [watchful] Eyes and Our direction.} [Surat Hūd: 37] {We carried him on an [Ark made] of planks and nails, sailing under Our [watchful] Eyes.} [Surat al-Qamar: 13-14] See: "Al-Ibānah ‘An Usūl Ad-Diyānah" (p. 22).
As for their saying: "A face that He turns to all places," it is not mentioned in the Qur’an; however, in the Qur’an, the following is mentioned: {Everyone on earth will perish, but there will remain the Face of your Lord, full of Majesty and Honor.} [Surat ar-Rahmān: 26-27] And His saying: {Everything will perish except His Face. His is the Judgment and to Him you will all be brought back.} [Surat al-Qasas: 88] And His saying: {To Allah belongs to the east and the west; wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. For Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 115] A group of the predecessors said about the meaning of "face" in this verse: There is the Qiblah of Allah, i.e., there is the direction of Allah. "Wajh" and "jihah" here (both mean direction) is like "wa‘d" and "‘idah" (both mean promise), and "wazn" and "zinah" (both mean weight).
"The Face of Allah" means: the direction of Allah, and the direction of Allah is to be faced in prayer, as He said at the beginning of the verse: {To Allah belongs the east and the west.} Then, He said: {Wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah.} Allah Almighty also said: {The foolish among the people will say: “What has turned them away from their prayer direction they used to face?” Say: “To Allah belongs the east and west: He guides whom He wills to a straight path.”} [Surat al-Baqarah: 142] So, the east and the west belong to Allah and {Every nation has a direction to which it turns.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 148] His saying: {to which it turns} means which it faces, then, this is like His saying: {Wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. For Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.} i.e., wherever you turn, there is the direction of Allah.
It was said: It denotes an attribute of Allah, but it also indicates that Allah has a face and that wherever the slaves turn, there will be the Face of Allah. So, it is they who turn and face in a direction not Him Who turns His Face to every place. This shows how they distorted the meaning of the Qur’an's wording and attributed lies to Muslims.
As for their saying: "And a side," no renowned Muslim scholar or famous Muslim sect is known to affirm for Allah a side like that of man. This word is mentioned in the Qur’an in His saying: {Lest someone should say, “Woe to me for neglecting the Janb (side) of Allah.} [Surat az-Zumar: 56] The mere addition does not entail that what is added to Allah is an attribute of Him. Rather, certain created beings along with their inseparable attributes could be added to Him without this being counted among His attributes, according to general consensus, as Allah Almighty says: {The House of Allah} [9], {a she-camel of Allah}, and {slaves of Allah}, and even {of Allah’s relief} This is the opinion held by the Muslim predecessors, their leading scholars, and their majority. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) might have meant Allah's saying: {to purify My House}.
However, if an attribute that belongs to Allah and not to others is added to Him, like the Speech of Allah, the Knowledge of Allah, the Hand of Allah, etc., then this refers to one of His attributes.
The Qur’an clarifies that "Janb" (side) does not refer here to what is like man's side, as Allah said: {Lest someone should say, “Woe to me for neglecting the "Janb" of Allah.} [Surat az-Zumar: 56] Negligence is not about any of the attributes of Allah Almighty.
If man says: So-and-so neglected the "Janb" of someone, he does not mean that negligence befell that person himself; rather, he means that he neglected his duties towards that person.
So, this word, when added to a creature, does not mean that negligence befell the side itself of that person that is connected to his ribs. Such negligence does not even approach him, then how could it be thought that the apparent meaning in relation to Allah indicates that negligence befalls His Essence?!
The "Janb" and "Jānib" of something could refer to its farthest point and its outline, and in this sense man's side is called so. Allah Almighty says: {Their sides forsake their beds, invoking their Lord with fear and hope.} [Surat as-Sajdah: 16] Allah Almighty also says: {Those who remember Allah while standing, sitting, and lying on their sides.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 191] The Prophet (ﷺ) said to ‘Imrān ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him and his father): "Pray while standing. If you cannot, then pray sitting. If you cannot, then pray on your side." [10] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1117).
If we assume that the addition includes Allah's attribute, then what we say about all the attributes added to Allah Almighty will apply to this as well. The Torah mentions in this regard what is like what is mentioned in the Qur’an.
[11] This is further clarified by the third aspect: We say: What is mentioned in the Qur’an and the Prophet's Hadīths about describing Allah with such attributes, which some people call anthropomorphism, is like what is mentioned in the Torah and in all the prophets' Books. It is what is mentioned in the Torah and the prophets' Books, not something invented by the People of the Book. Had they innovated that and described the Creator with anthropomorphic attributes that He must not be described with, the Prophet (ﷺ) would have dispraised them for that just as he dispraised them for describing Him with imperfections, as in His saying: {Allah has heard the words of those who said, “Allah is poor, and we are rich!”} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 181] And His saying: {The Jews say, “Allah’s Hand is restrained.” Their hands have been restrained and they have been cursed for what they say. Rather, His both Hands are wide open, spending as He pleases.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 64] Marginal remark/ Establishing the divine attributes is not unique to Muslims; rather, they are mentioned in the Torah except for what they distorted.
Allah Almighty says: {Indeed, We created the heavens and earth and all that is between them in six days, and no weariness touched Us.} [Surat Qāf: 38] He negated from Himself "weariness", which is wrongly linked to the word "rest" mentioned in the Torah. The Torah states that Allah created the world in six days, then rested on Saturday, which made some people think that He got tired and, thus, took a rest.
Some Muslim scholars said: They distorted the meaning of this word, not its wording, and this is the exact wording of the revealed Torah. This opinion was held by Ibn Qutaybah and others. They said: It means: Then, He left the creation, and He expressed this meaning using the word: "rested". [12] See: Ta’wīl Mushkil al-Qur’ān (p. 70).
Others said: Rather, they distorted its wording - as stated by Abu Bakr al-Anbāri and others - and they added: These are not its revealed words. [13] See: Az-Zāhir (2/138) and Tahdhīb al-Lughah (12/268).
As for what is mentioned in the Torah regarding the establishing of the divine attributes, the Prophet (ﷺ) did not deny anything of that; rather, whenever the Jewish scholars mentioned something of that, he used to acknowledge and approve it for them, as stated in the two "Sahīhs" that Ibn Mas‘ūd (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: "A Jewish rabbi came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: 'O Muhammad, on the Day of Judgment Allah Almighty will carry the heavens on one finger, the earths on one finger, the mountains and the trees on one finger, the water and the dust on one finger, and all other creatures on one finger. Then, He will shake them and say: "I am the King."' Thereupon, the Prophet (ﷺ) laughed so much that his premolar teeth became visible, confirming what the rabbi said. Then, he recited: {They did not revere Allah His true reverence. On the Day of Resurrection, the whole earth will be in His Grip, and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand..."} [14] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4811) and by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2786).
The Torah states: (Allah wrote the Torah with His Finger). [15] See: Book of Exodus (31: 18).
If such texts are proven to exist in the Torah and the previous divine Books by consensus among the People of the Book and by similar texts reported by the Messenger of Allah that testify to this and by his refraining from denying what is in the Torah and his approval of what they used to mention about that, then Muslims are not the only ones to mention what they called anthropomorphism; rather, the People of the Book from the Jews and the Christians are required to believe in it like the Muslims.
The People of the Book, as well as the Muslims, went in different directions in this regard:
Some of them went to extremes in negation and denial.
While others went to extremes in drawing resemblance and likening.
As for most Muslims and their leading scholars, they adopt a moderate course between Ta‘tīl (negation) and Tamthīl (likening). This applies also to a group of the People of the Book.
[16] What is meant here: If such attributes are mentioned in the divine Books - the Torah and others - just as they are mentioned in the Qur’an, then this is not unique to Muslims. It is, thus, not permissible for the Christians to make this like what is unique to them, i.e., Trinity and unity, which are unique to them. But these divine attributes are common between the three religions. The Trinity and unity are not reported from any of the prophets (peace be upon them), whereas these divine attributes are mentioned in the Qur’an, the Torah, and other prophets' divine Books. So, how could there be a comparison between the two?! Marginal remark/ Invalidity of the Christians' attribution of likening and anthropomorphism to Muslims
The Fourth Aspect: Their saying: "Giving the listeners a false impression that Allah has a body, limbs, and organs" is a void statement. This is because Allah gave Himself and His attributes names as He gave some of His slaves and their attributes names, which in relation to them are like these names in relation to Allah Almighty.
He called Himself "the Ever-Living," as He says: {Allah: none has the right to be worshiped except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining} [Surat al-Baqarah: 255] until the end of the verse. {Put your trust in the Ever-Living Who never dies.} [Surat al-Furqān: 58] He called some of His slaves "living", as He says: {He brings forth the living from the dead.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 95] Bearing in mind that "living" is not like the "Ever-Living."
He called Himself "the All-Knowing," as He says: {Your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 83] He called some of His slaves "knowing," as He says: {And gave him glad tidings of a knowing son.} [Surat adh-Dhāriyāt: 28] Bearing in mind that "knowing" is not like the "All-Knowing."
He also called Himself "the King", "the Compeller", "the Supreme", and "the All-Mighty" and He called some of His slaves "king", some of them "mighty", some of them "supreme" and "compeller". However, He is not like His creation in all these. [17] Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) mentioned other examples like the Forbearing, the All-Kind, and the Most Merciful. He mentioned at length the issue of the commonalities of fate in his book "At-Tadmuriyyah" (p. 20-30).
The same applies to what He reported about Himself regarding His Istiwā’ (rising) over the Throne, His coming in the shadows of clouds and the like of such matters, as His Istiwā’ is not like His creation and His coming is not like created beings.
Such meanings that are added once to the Creator and another time to the creature are mentioned in three manners, which are:
Sometimes it is restricted through its addition to the Creator or through the Creator's addition to it, as Allah Almighty says: {While they encompass nothing of His knowledge, except what He wills...} [Surat al-Baqarah: 255] {Indeed, it is Allah Who is the All-Provider, Lord of Power, the Mighty.} [Surat adh-Dhāriyāt: 58] When such attributes are restricted to the Creator, they indicate nothing of the creatures' characteristics.
Thus, saying: The knowledge of Allah, His power, His Istiwā’ (rising over), His coming, His Hand, etc., is the kind of addition that entails what is unique to the Creating Lord and excludes what is unique to the creature.
Other times it is restricted to the creature, as Allah Almighty says: {Allah testifies that none has the right to be worshiped except Him, as do the angels and people of knowledge.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 18] Also, when saying: {Then when you and those who are with you have made Istiwā’ (embarked) on the Ark.} [Surat al-Mu’minūn: 28] This kind of addition entails what is unique to the slave and excludes what is unique to the Almighty Lord.
A third case is when it is mentioned in an unrestricted manner indicating what is general and common. In this case, it includes both like all the words that refer to the Creator and the creature as well.
What is meant here: When Allah Almighty adds to Himself something that is unique to Him and excludes whatever is unique to the creatures, and yet says: {There is nothing like unto Him}, {And there is none comparable to Him}, and denies having an equal, then whoever interprets this as indicating what is unique to the creature is misled by his own erroneous understanding and deficient mind, not by shortage in the clarification of Allah and His Messenger, and this applies equally to all attributes.
So, whoever understands from "the knowledge of Allah" what is unique to the creature that it is an incidental attribute that occurs by necessity or by acquisition, is indeed misled by his own self, for our saying: [the knowledge of Allah] does not indicate that.
Similarly, whoever understands from His saying: {Rather, His both Hands are wide open} until the end of the verse. {What prevented you from prostrating to whom I created with My two Hands?} to be referring to what is unique to the creature; his limbs and organs, is misled by his own self, for nothing in these words indicates what is unique to the creature as in other attributes.
[18] The Fifth Aspect: Their saying: "If they believe that the Great Creator has no "jism" (body)" indicates their using the word "jism" to refer to volume and mass not to the entity itself that has a volume and mass, which is one of the connotations of the word and the most famous in colloquial language. They say, for instance: This garment has a "jism" (mass) while that garment does not have a "jism", i.e., this one is lesser in mass and density than that one. However, the Nuzhzhār (polemicists) use the word "jism" mostly to refer to the entity itself that has a mass, thus calling the independent entity that has a mass "jism". Marginal remark/ Invalidity of the Christians' beliefs according to all views and the Muslim sects
The frequent use of this word in the polemicists' speech led them to hold divergent opinions regarding its linguistic, rational, and legal meanings, and such divergence was the cause of misleading many people. The linguistic origin of this word means: the body. More than one linguist, like Al-Asma‘i, Abu Zayd, and others said: "Jism" is the body.
Linguists use this word to refer to what has a mass and density; thus, they do not call the air "jism" or "jasad" (body), yet they call man's body "jasad".
So, "jism" means: the body itself, and it could also mean: the volume and the mass of the body. Allah Almighty says: {And has increased him abundantly in knowledge and Jism (physique).} [Surat al-Baqarah: 247] Allah Almighty also says: {When you see them, their Jism (outward appearance) pleases you, and when they speak, you listen to what they say. But they are like planks of wood leaned [against the wall].} [Surat al-Munāfiqūn: 4]
So, it could indicate either of the two meanings.
Moreover, polemicists used the word "jism" to indicate a broader meaning than its linguistic meaning, and they did the same with words like "jawhar" (essence), "‘arad" (incidental attribute), "wujūd" (existence), "dhāt" (self) and others. They used the word "jism" to denote any independent being that could be referred to in a tangible manner.
What is meant here is: that the conflict between those affirmers and the negators could be verbal, like the conflict among Christians regarding the word "essence", or it could be rational, like their conflict regarding that which could be referred to; whether it is made up of individual essences, or of matter and form, or of neither of them.
Those who said that He is [jism] say: He is made up of individual essences or of matter and form. Such people are dispraised by words and meaning by the majority of Muslims and others. The Christians and others are incapable of responding to those people. This is because of their reliance on weak methods that cannot withstand the rational criterion in exalting Allah above the bodies' properties. On the other hand, those whose conflict is verbal, is dispraised either from the linguistic perspective or from the linguistic as well as Shariah perspectives. This is due to using a word that was not permitted by the Shariah or for using it to refer to a meaning different from its linguistic meaning, bearing in mind that the negator could also be dispraised for the same reason from the linguistic and Shariah perspectives, if the meaning is correct.
As for the affirmer or negator who negates a truth or affirms a falsehood, he is dispraised spiritually, legally, and rationally.
Concerning the Shariah, the messengers, and their followers from among the nations of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (ﷺ) did not say that Allah is a "jism" (body) or that Allah is not a "jism". They did not say that He is a "jawhar" (essence) or that He is not a "jawhar". However, the linguistic, rational, and religious dispute arose regarding such names was innovated in the three religions after the early generation of each had passed away.
The messengers and their followers agreed upon what was mentioned in the Qur’an and the Torah; that Allah is described with all the attributes of perfection and that nothing is like Him. Thus, His attributes must not be likened to those of creatures, along with establishing the attributes that He established for Himself. Nothing should be added to or removed from His attributes.
With this being clarified, Muslims are not to be blamed since they believe that Allah Almighty should be described with what He described Himself and that nothing is like Him, and since the attributes they establish for Him are those reported by the messengers. This is because they established what was established by the messengers and negated what the messengers negated, and such negation led to the negation of false assumptions. Unlike Muslims, there are those who established what was not reported by the messengers and added what confirms the false meaning, not what negates it. And among that which they negated was His not being a "jism" (body) made up of individual essences or of matter and form.
According to one of the two opinions of the polemicists, their predominant opinion, all independent existents other than Allah are not made up of either of them; so, Allah Almighty is worthier of being exalted above such a description, since He is more entitled to be exalted above any imperfection that is negated from a creature.
According to their second opinion, on the other hand, they say once: What is made up of individual essences or parts can be separated, which is impossible regarding Allah Almighty. Another time they say: Because it needs its parts, which is impossible regarding Allah Almighty, as His parts represent something other than Himself, and whoever needs others cannot be self-sufficient, pre-existent, and eternal,
some of them do not negate or establish except the Shariah-approved words. So, as they do not say: He is a body and an essence, they do not also say: He is neither a body nor an essence. Others from among them use such words, some of whom negate them while others establish them.
Each of the two groups might include in this what conforms with the Shariah or what contradicts it, and each of them claims to adopt a rational or a linguistic perspective, and some of them might even adhere to what they believe to be Shariah-approved evidence. However, most likely they do not adhere in this regard to a revealed law, as there is no revealed law concerning this; rather, they undertake changing the language with which the Prophet was sent and then interpret his words according to the language they innovated just as the Christians did when they interpreted the prophets' words according to what they innovated of the language.
The prophets did not name the knowledge of Allah and His life: as son, holy spirit, or god; however, the Christians named them: as son, holy spirit, and god, then, they construed the prophets' words accordingly.
A group of the scholastic theologians, whom the predecessors call "Jahmiyyah", innovated the act of calling that which cannot be pointed at and whose parts cannot be perceived by the senses as "wāhid", "ahad", etc. However, this opposes the linguistic use of such words as linguists use such names: "wāhid", "wahīd", and "ahad" in negating what could be pointed at and whose parts could be perceived by the senses, as Allah Almighty says: {Leave me to deal with the one whom I created Wahīd (lonely).} [Surat al-Muddaththir: 11] Here, He called man: Wahīd (lonely). Allah Almighty also says: {But if there is only Wāhidah (one) daughter, she gets half.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 11] Here, He called the woman: Wāhidah (one). He also says: {If Ahad (any) of the polytheists asks you for protection, give it to him, so that he may hear the Word of Allah.} [Surat at-Tawbah: 6] Here, He called the one seeking protection - who is a human being -: Ahad (someone). Allah Almighty also says: {And there is no Ahad (one) comparable to Him.} [Surat al-Ikhlās: 4] Here, He negated the existence of anyone comparable to Him.
So, if what could be pointed at is not to be called "ahad", then He would not have exalted Himself above resembling the creatures since all visible creatures could be pointed at. Hence, if they had not been included in "ahad" (anyone), He would not have exalted Himself above resembling them.
When those who innovated the concept that "ahad" and "wāhid" are names of what cannot be referred to, they said: The Lord called Himself "Ahad" and "Wāhid". Therefore, this necessarily means that He cannot be referred to.
Nonetheless, the Prophet's language with which he addressed people did not accord with what they invented of the language.
The same applies to those who said: "He is a 'jism' (body)" and changed the language, as they made "jism" a name for what can be pointed at, or for every existent, or for every independent being. Then, they said: He exists, or He is Self-Sufficient, or He can be pointed at, thus He is a "jism" (body). However, the name "jism" is not used in language for either of them.
They also said: His being referred to does not entail His being composed of individual essences or of matter and form. They said: Rather, it entails this as whatever is composed is linguistically called "jism". Therefore, He must be called "jism" if we say: He can be pointed at, or can be seen with the eyes, or is characterized by inseparable attributes. However, what they mentioned about the language is not correct since linguists do not use "jism" to refer to something composed; rather, for them "jism" means: body, and they do not call air "jism".
With this being clarified, the example given by those Christians is invalid according to the opinion of every Muslim sect.
As for those who say that "jism" linguistically points at the composed and Allah is not composed, so He is not a "jism". They do not adopt what was mentioned of Allah having a Face that He turns to every place and a Side and the like.
Moreover, those who say that Allah is not composed and called Him "jism" - in the sense that He is Self-Sufficient - or did not call Him "jism" do not adopt this view as well. Whoever is reported to establish for Him the traits of composed bodies is mistaken. So, if they used what He negated, then the Christians have no argument against them, and if they did not use it, then their argument is far more invalid. Thus, it became clear that they have no argument against those who hold the most deviant opinions on anthropomorphism, let alone others.
[19] The Sixth Aspect: We say to those Christians: You use the word "jism" either to refer to its linguistic meaning, which is the body, or to refer to its technical meaning according to the scholastic theologians, which is something pointed at for instance. Marginal remark/ Asking for details about the meaning of "jism" because it is a brief word by which they sometimes intend a sound meaning and other times a false meaning:
- If you intend the first meaning, then negating this does not entail negating the attributes you mentioned, especially if you say: He is an essence, and you divided the essence into subtle and dense.
So, if something dense refers to the body and the subtle refers to the essence and is not a body, this does not prevent such a thing from having the attributes that suit it. An example of this is the angels who can be described by this, even if they are not bodies in this sense; rather, they are spiritual essences.
Similarly, man's soul that comes out of him can be described by what suits it of that, even though it is not a body in this sense.
So, it became clear that negating the name "jism" in its linguistic sense from something does not prevent it from being described by what was mentioned of the attributes and their likes.
- If you intend by "jism": the independent being or that which could be pointed at, then it could be a body according to you, as you called it an essence and meant the independent being.
If it is proven that every independent being could be pointed at, then it is also a being that could be pointed at.
And if it is proven that He is an independent being that could not be pointed at, then He is an essence as well as a body according to those who interpret "jism" as the independent being. However, those who interpret "jism" as the being that could be pointed at will not call Him a body.
Thus, it became clear that, according to your original beliefs: it is possible to call Him a body along with your calling Him an essence, unless it is proven that among the existents is an independent essence that cannot be pointed at, which they failed to prove. This is not the view held by followers of the divine religions from among the Muslims, the Jews, and the Christians; rather, it is the view held by a group of philosophers, and a few followers of the divine religions agreed with them.
Then, we say: You said: [He is living and speaking and has life and speech], and you even added to that until you made Him three hypostases. It is known that life and speech cannot be rationally perceived except as attributes inseparable from a described being, and there is no being described with life and speech except that it could be pointed at; rather, it is a body like the human being. So, if you can establish such incidental attributes for a being that has no body, then others can establish the coming, the hand, and the like for a being that has no body.
If you say: This is impossible except for a body.
We say: And what you said is impossible except for a body. So, if you refer to what is seen, this will be an argument against you, and if you can establish for the unseen a ruling unlike the seen, others can also do so.
In that case, there is no contradiction between what Muslims negated and what they established, if what you mentioned about them regarding their negation and establishing is true, then how would it be when distortion occurred in both?!
[20] The Seventh Aspect: We say: Your utmost objective is to say: As Muslims use words, which apparently indicate disbelief for them, only because they were mentioned in the texts, while they do not believe in their apparent meaning, similarly, we use such words that apparently indicate disbelief because they were mentioned in the texts, while we do not believe in their meaning. Marginal remark/ Invalidity of the claim that the Muslims' statements about Allah's attributes are like the Christians' statements about Trinity
We say: First: The texts that Muslims stated regarding the divine attributes, you also stated, as mentioned in the Torah, so this is common between you and them. However, you alone adopted Trinity and Unity, whereas they did not share this with you.
Second: Muslims used words that are textually proven; however, you used words that are not proven in the texts.
Muslims used such words coupled with textual proofs of negating the likening; however, you did not couple your words with what negates your establishing of the Trinity and Unity.
Muslims did not believe in a false meaning, while your belief in the Trinity of the hypostases and in Unity includes a false meaning.
Muslims did not call the attributes of Allah names they innovated and then construed the messengers' words accordingly; however, you innovated names for Allah's attributes that you, not the messengers, called them with and then construed the messengers' words accordingly.
Muslims did not turn away from the numerous, definite, clear, and evident texts to few ambiguous words, while you did that.
Muslims did not lay down for themselves a belief code other than what was brought by the messengers, whereas you did that.
Muslims did not say anything irrational and inconceivable, whereas you did that.
Muslims did not contradict themselves, as they believe in one God, while you say there are two gods, rather three, and you are contradicted yourselves.
[21] Such differences and others manifest the invalidity of your comparing yourselves to Muslims. Marginal remark/ Invalidity of the argument that the Gospel mentions Trinity
The Eighth Aspect: Your saying: "Similarly, the reason why we, the Christians, say: Allah is three hypostases: a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, is what the Gospel stated."
We say: This is false; neither the Gospel nor any of the prophets' books stated that Allah is three hypostases, nor did any of the prophets give the Lord three attributes, apart from other attributes. Neither the Messiah nor others said that: Allah is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or that He has a hypostasis who is the Son, and another hypostasis who is the Holy Spirit. He did not say that the Son is: His word, His Knowledge, His wisdom, or His speech, and that the Holy Spirit is: His life, and he did not call any of His attributes a son or a child. He did not mention any of the Lord's attributes that it is born, did not make the pre-existent and the eternal One to be born, and did not say about an eternal one or about a creature: [He is a true god from a true god]. He did not also say about Allah's attributes that they are gods, and that the Word is god, and the Spirit is god. He did not say that: Allah is united - in His essence or in His attributes - with any of the humans. Rather, you made up all these and, thus, deviated from the revealed law and from reason and contradicted the divine books and clear reason and became among those meant by His saying: {And they will say, “If only we had listened or understood, we would not be among the dwellers of the Blazing Fire.”} [Surat Al-Mulk: 10]
It is you who called Allah's speech "Son" and justified this by saying that you called it "Son" for it was generated from Him as the speech is generated from the mind. If this is the case, then you should have also called His life "Son" because it is emanated from Him and is generated from Him. This is because there is no difference between the Lord's knowledge and His life since both are inseparable from Him.
So, why did you call one of them only "Son" without calling the other "Son"?! You said: He is begotten from Allah, and he is pre-existent and eternal, and you acknowledge that none of the prophets called Allah's knowledge, His words, or His wisdom: begotten from Him. What people perceive about the newborn, who is born of other than Him - as knowledge and speech are generated from man himself - that he is created or separate from Him; it is illogical to believe that he is inseparable from Him and that he is pre-existent and eternal.
The maximum you have is what is found in the Gospel of Matthew, which is not mentioned in all other Gospels, that the Messiah (peace be upon him) said: (Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). [22] See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
As you know from the words of the Messiah and other prophets that they did not mean by [the Son] Allah's attribute, His speech, His knowledge, or His wisdom. Also, they did not mean by [the Son]: a true god from a true god, or a pre-existent and an eternal newborn. Rather, they meant by it: His ally, who is human and not god, like Jacob and the disciples.
They also did not mean by [the Holy Spirit]: Allah's life itself, or a living god; rather, they meant by it: the angel, or what Allah sent down of guidance, support, and the like upon the hearts of His prophets and chosen slaves. Thus, [the Holy Spirit] for you and for Muslims is in the prophets and others, just as it was in Dāwūd (David) and others and was in the disciples.
If we assume that the word "Son" was found in the Messiah's words to be referring to Allah's Word once and another time to His human ally, and the "Holy Spirit" referring to His life once and another time to what He sent down upon His prophets' hearts; then, your assertion that he meant by that Allah's attributes is an invalid assertion. This is because what the Messiah was described with, being the Son of Allah and having the Holy Spirit in him, was used to describe other prophets and righteous slaves too.
So, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are two of Allah's attributes, then other than the Messiah must combine divinity and humanity like the Messiah, since what occurred to the Messiah occurred to others too.
Then, you asserted that these attributes are hypostases, and that Allah does not possess attributes of self or essence or the like except these three. Then, you held divergent opinions on these three:
Do the hypostases mean: existence, knowledge, and life?
Or do they mean: existence, knowledge, and ability?
Or do they mean: existence, life, and ability?
Or do they mean: existence along with life, knowledge, and ability? And many other views.
I wish I knew what the Messiah meant by the words "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" from such matters that you differed about! If what he meant was the hypostases, as you claimed; while "the hypostases" - neither in word nor in meaning - is found in the statements of any of the prophets. Rather, it is said to be a Roman word that is interpreted once as: the origin, another time as: the person, another time as: the essence along with the attribute, another time as: the special, and another time as: the attribute.
[23] So, you would be better off to leave the Messiah's speech alone without subjecting it to all such distortions. One of the great persons said some excellent words: If you asked a Christian, his son, and his grandson about their belief, each of them would tell you about a creed that contradicts the other's creed, given the fact that their belief was originally based on ignorance and misguidance, as they possess no textual or rational knowledge. They are as Allah Almighty says: {There are some people who argue about Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an enlightening scripture.} [Surat al-Hajj: 8] They possess no knowledge at all concerning their belief of Trinity and Unity, let alone what is more particular than that, which is knowledge that leads them to guidance. Thus, they are misguided, let alone what is more particular than guidance, which is: "an enlightening scripture", as they have no "enlightening scripture" to prove their belief. Marginal remark/ The Christians' contradiction in cursing whoever believes in multiple gods and cursing whoever believes in monotheism without Trinity
The Ninth Aspect: They say: [Whoever says: three gods, different or parallel, or three combined persons, or anything else that entails partnership, multiplication, division, and comparison, we condemn him and deem him a disbeliever].
We say: You also condemn whoever says: [The Messiah is not a true god from a true god, and is not equal to the Father in essence], and whoever says: [He (Jesus) is not a creator], and whoever says: [He is not sitting on the right of his Father], and whoever says: [The Holy Spirit is not a living god who gives life], and whoever says: [He is not three hypostases].
You also condemn - along with your saying that he is the creator - whoever says: [He is the Father], and the Father is the Creator. So, you condemn whoever says: [He is the creating Father] and whoever says: [He is not the creator], thus, combining the two contradictory opinions.
You condemn whoever believes in pure monotheism without associating a partner with Allah and without believing in Trinity, and you condemn whoever establishes Trinity and believes that each one of them is separate from the other, thus combining the two contradictions. So, whoever establishes each one of them apart from the other, you condemn him. This is like one who says: I have one three; so, whoever says: it is one not three, he is considered wrong, and whoever says: it is three not one, he is considered wrong. It is also like one who says: I have something that is existent and non-existent. So, whoever says: He is existent and not non-existent, he is considered wrong, and whoever says: He is non-existent and not existent, he is considered wrong. It is also like one who says: I have something that is alive and dead, knowledgeable, and ignorant, able, and unable. Then, whoever says: He is alive and not dead, he is considered wrong, and whoever says: he is dead and not alive, he is considered wrong.
Similarly, you combine two contradictory views, one of which is right and the other is false. So, whoever adopts the right view and negates the false one, you condemn him, and whoever adopts the false view and negates the right one, you condemn him.
[24] The Tenth Aspect: They say: "As for the Father and the Son, they do not refer to fatherhood and sonship that result from marriage, and whoever intends by that a wife's labor, we condemn him." Marginal remark/ Contradiction and confusion in describing the child and labor and their false implications
We say: The well-known word "labor" is made up of two origins, it occurs by separation of a part from the two origins, and involves coming into existence of the newborn, whether it is the birth of an animal or others. This is similar to the case when fire is generated from two sticks; when one of them is rubbed against the other, a subtle part (spark) comes out from them and turns into fire, which then falls on the tinder.
Some people used the word "labor" in a broader sense to refer to what results from something even when it does not involve separation of a part from it, like the generation of rays from the fire, the sun, and others, as this happens by means of two things:
First: The source from which it is generated, which is here the sun and the fire.
Second: The place on which it is reflected, which is the body facing it on which the ray falls.
As for what comes into being from one thing, it is not known to be called "labor" if something like this exists in the first place. Moreover, what is inseparable from one thing is not known to be called "child".
Concerning one's inseparable attributes that exist in him, they make one even farther from being called "labor" since labor cannot occur except through two origins.
Whoever says: Allah has a son, it entails that He has a wife, regardless of how he interprets "labor", and entails that He has a created son. This is why Allah Almighty says: {They regard the jinn as partners of Allah, even though He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge. Glorified and Exalted is He far above what they ascribe to Him. He is the Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have a son when He never had a companion? He created all things, and He is All-Knowing of everything.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 100-101]
Allah Almighty asked a denial question, to clarify the impossibility of Him having a son without having a wife as a son cannot come into being except from two origins. This is something that must be taken into consideration, i.e. it is unfamiliar to call what is inseparable from one thing "generated from it," especially the pre-existent and eternal attributes that are inseparable from the essence of the Lord of the worlds and that are eternally attributed to Him. According to all rational people, man's attributes that are inseparable from him, like his life and ability, are not generated from him. No rational person who realizes what he is saying says: The color and volume of the sky are generated from it, or the volume of the sun and its light, which exists in it and are inseparable from it, are generated from it. No one also says: The heat of the fire and its light, which exist in it, are generated from it.
Rather, it could be said - if it is said - about what does not exist in it but exists in something else, or about what occurs after being non-existent, like the rays that exist on the earth and walls, which do not exist in it; rather, they exist elsewhere and represent something new generated from two origins not from one origin.
However, no rational person says about a creature's attributes, which exist in him and are inseparable from him, that they are generated from him.
The Christians claim that [the Word of Allah], which they interpret as His knowledge or His wisdom, and [the Holy Spirit], which they interpret as His life or His ability, represent a pre-existent and an eternal attribute of Him with which He is eternally described. Despite this, they say: The Word is begotten from Him, thus considering His pre-existent and eternal knowledge as something generated from Him without considering His pre-existent and eternal life as something generated from Him.
They were right when they did not consider His life generated from Him; however, by this some of their contradictions and misguidance appeared, which have several types. This is because if His pre-existent and eternal attribute that is inseparable from His essence is called His son, His child and generated from Him and the like, then His life also becomes His son, His child and generated from Him; otherwise, His knowledge will not be His son, His child, and will not be generated from Him.
What is even more terrible is: that they do not say about the [Holy Spirit], which is separate from Him and exists in the prophets and the people of truth, that it is His son or that it is generated from Him; rather, they specify this to the Word. They do not report from any of the prophets that they called any of Allah's attributes "a son" or "a child", or that they said that Allah's knowledge, speech, or wisdom is His child, son, or generated from Him.
It became known, thus, that such people are totally contradicting themselves in meanings and words and are opposing all the divine books and the facts, which they call "rational laws" that Allah instilled in His slaves. They are also contradicting all human languages. What exposes the invalidity of their example is they said: [The Word was generated from Him in the same manner the word and wisdom are generated in us from the mind].
We say: If we assume that the prophets called this "a son", then it must be noted that what is generated in us occurs after its being non-existent and its occurrence is caused by our acting, ability, and will. As for our inseparable attributes that we do not have an option of being described with, and that we will continue to be described with, no rational person can say about them: that they are generated in us and from us; whereas, you consider Allah's pre-existent and eternal attribute, which is inseparable from Him and with which He is eternally described, as being generated from Him.
If we assume that what you mentioned about rationally generating is something that is linguistically, rationally, and legally known, then you should not have considered Allah's knowledge and wisdom, which you referred to as the meaning of His Word, to be His son and to be begotten from Him and to be eternally begotten from Him as this is rationally, legally, and linguistically invalid.
Rationally speaking, the inseparable attribute - even that of the creature - is not generated from it, so how about the pre-existent attribute of the pre-existent One?! If this is possible, then it is possible to consider what is inseparable from other than Him, their son and generated from them, thus considering the nature of things and their amounts generated from them and are like them.
It should be said: The height, width, and depth of the body are generated from it, and the life of the living is generated from him, and the powers and natures that Allah instilled in the creatures are generated from them.
From a Shariah perspective, if this is "mutawallid" (generated) and is called in some languages "walad" (son), it is not permissible to construe the prophets' words accordingly unless it is called "walad" in their language.
In fact, all those who examined the prophets' books from among the Christian scholars and others did not find any of the prophets calling Allah's knowledge, His Word, and His life as His child or His son, or saying that this is generated from Him.
Their saying about the Messiah: (Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) [25]: He meant by "the Son": Allah's pre-existent and eternal Word, which is generated from Him, and meant by "the Holy Spirit": Allah's pre-existent and eternal life, is nothing but sheer lies about the Messiah (peace be upon him), as nothing in his words or in other prophets' words proves that they called Allah's knowledge, wisdom, or any of His attributes that exist in Him a "Son", or that they called His life "the Holy Spirit". See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
Linguistically, this expression that they used - which is calling one's attributes that are inseparable from him as "child", "son", and "generated" - is not recognized in any of the known human languages. One might adopt another person's child and take him as his own and consider him his child, even though he was not generated from him as people in the pre-Islamic era of ignorance from among the Arabs and others used to do. Hence, Allah Almighty exalted Himself above having children and taking a son, as He says: {No indeed, it is one of their fabrications when they say, “Allah has children,” and they are truly liars.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 151-152] And His saying: {They say, “Allah has taken a son.” Glory be to Him! Rather, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and earth – all are devoutly obedient to Him. The Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 116-117]
The People of the Book mention in their books that Allah's righteous slaves are called: Son, and Allah is called: Father, and the chosen ones are called: Children. If this is authentically reported from the prophets, then they only intended a sound meaning.
The word could mean something in a certain language and have a different meaning in another language, and what is meant by "child" and "son" does not contradict his being a creature and a slave of Allah Almighty.
As for calling any of Allah's attributes "son" or "child", it is not reported from any of the prophets or from the nations that have languages except the Christian heretics.
Thus, only two meanings are left for "tawallud" (generating):
First: the separation of a part from Him.
Second: the occurrence of something from Him either by His choice or without His choice and ability, like the occurrence of the ray from the fire and the sun.
In both cases, it must occur from two origins, and it must be incidental not an inseparable attribute of Him. Thus, it is impossible for anything to be generated from Him if there is no other origin along with Him from both of which it could be generated.
Being generated from Him without His ability and His will is impossible according to followers of the divine religions from among the Muslims, Jews, Christians, and the rest of nations except for a group of philosophizers who say: He is an intrinsic cause by Himself necessitating what occurs from Him. The view held by those matches this type of generating.
What is meant here is that: It is impermissible to interpret the prophets' words except considering their usual language which they addressed people with. It is not permissible for anybody to innovate a language different from theirs and then construe their words according to that. Even more, if some people have a usual manner and language in addressing their friends, and we assume that this is permissible for them, then they have no right to consider this the prophet's language and construe his words according to that.
This includes the prophets' report that Allah says, speaks, calls, and converses privately, and says so-and-so, and called Moses and the like.
According to their language and the language of all other nations, the speaker is the one who utters the speech, even if he speaks by his ability and will. In their language, it is not known that the speaker is the one who makes a speech separate from him, nor is the speaker the one upon whom the speech is made without his ability and will. Thus, if the speaker is defined as the one who makes a speech separate from him or the one causing speech without his ability and will, then no one should construe the prophets' words according to such a definition. Rather, the speaker in general means: The one who speaks with his ability and will and speech is inseparable from him. This is the well-known definition in the language of the prophets and all nations when in its general sense, and there are numerous similar examples of this.
Thus, whoever interprets the prophets' words in accordance with a language other than their known language is among those who alter and distort their words, and the Christians are among those.
[Knowing] the language that the prophets addressed us with and construing their words according to it is an individual obligation, and whoever pursues a different approach is distorting their speech and attributing lies to them.
The Muslims, Jews, and Christians agree that many people from among the People of the three Books committed this type of distortion and alteration, and that the Torah and the Gospel were distorted in this sense, and the atheists and the heretic innovators also distorted the Qur’an in this sense.
The People of the Book reported from the prophets their using the words: [Father] and [Son] while intending - according to them - [the Father]: the Lord, and [the Son]: the loved and chosen one. None of them reported from the prophets they called any of Allah's attributes "son", or that they said about any of His attributes that it is generated from Him or begotten from Him.
So, if it is true that the Messiah (peace be upon him) said: (Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) [26] and they interpreted [the Son] as: Allah's pre-existent and eternal attribute, then this would represent a blatant lie against the Messiah because in his language, the word "son" never meant: Allah's pre-existent and eternal attribute. See: Gospel of Matthew (28: 19).
Moreover, if the prophets' speech contained nothing denoting that Allah's life is called: the Holy Spirit; rather, they meant by [the Holy Spirit]: What Allah Almighty sends down upon the prophets as well as upon the righteous slaves and supports them therewith, then interpreting the Messiah's words, "the Holy Spirit", by saying that he meant: Allah's life, is a lie against the Messiah.
This is further clarified by the fact that the elite Christians and their scholars - as they permit saying that: the Messiah is Allah's son - must, consequently, say that Mary is Allah's companion and wife, as stated by the extremists among them, whereas others considered Mary a god with Allah just as they considered the Messiah a god.
If they adopted this view, they would be claiming that Allah has a companion and a son and would be claiming that the Messiah and his mother, Mary, are two gods besides Allah, as some of them did.
Others say about Mary that she is the companion of Allah Almighty.
This is necessarily intended, since the Messiah according to them is a complete human and a complete god, human and divine. His humanity is derived from Mary while his divinity is the pre-existent and eternal Word, which is the creator according to them. So, the Messiah comes from two origins: human and divine, and if they believe that [the Father] is: Allah, and the Word begotten from the Father is: the Son of Allah, then it becomes known that since divinity merged with humanity to beget the Messiah, it coupled and united with it, which is the meaning of wedlock.
As they said: It was a rational labor not a physical one, then the coupling and matrimony were rational and not physical too. So, according to their view, divinity was coupled with Mary's humanity and married her rationally and the Messiah was, thus, created from both.
They say in the Nicene Creed: [The Messiah was embodied from Mary and from the Holy Spirit].
If they interpret [the Holy Spirit] as: Jibrīl (Gabriel) - as interpreted by Muslims - then this is the truth, and their view is proven to be invalid. However, they say: The Holy Spirit is the third hypostases, as they say about the Word which represents divinity.
They mentioned that he was embodied from humanity and divinity, so they must, consequently, say that Messiah is the Son, and he is also the Holy Spirit and, thus, he is two hypostases not one.
What is meant here is that: If they said: The Lord, or some of His attributes, was or were united with what was created from Mary, then, He must have a contact with Mary before His contact with what was created from her, and this is the meaning of wedlock and coupling.
According to most Christians, Mary gave birth to the divine as she gave birth to the human, and she is the mother of the divine; they even say in their prayer: O god's mother!
According to them, the divine who was born from Mary is the lord of the worlds, and divinity was united with humanity since the time humanity was created in Mary's womb, not after labor. So, if it is possible for them that the Lord of the worlds has a mother, who gave birth to him in any manner, then His having a companion and a wife is even more likely. In fact, nothing could be more rationally and legally impossible than her being a mother of a god.
So, if it is possible that god has a mother - bearing in mind that mother is an origin - then, having a companion, namely a wife, and a peer is far more possible, as it is known that what is born of something and is a branch of it and is generated from it is inferior to it than its peer.
So, if they said: The Lord of the worlds has a son united with humanity and he is His counterpart who is equal to Him in essence, and they said: The human is the mother of this Messiah, who is Allah and who is Allah's son, and said: The human Mary gave birth to the divine just as she gave birth to the human, and this is not a defect of which the Lord should be exalted, then, considering the mother of this son, who conceived him and the divine was united with him and who gave birth to the divine, as the companion and wife of the Father is worthier; otherwise, how could she give birth to His son, who is divine, without being His companion and wife?!
They say: We called His knowledge begotten from Him because it was generated from Him as the word is generated from the mind, and this son was united with the human and, thus, we called the total outcome "son".
This way, they differentiate between the Messiah being a son and other prophets being called "son", as they say: [Those are sons in terms of labor, whereas the Messiah is a son in terms of nature], i.e., those were called "sons" by the Lord's will and ability because He chose them. However, the Word, which they claimed to be united with the Messiah, is according to them pre-existent and eternally generated from Allah, apart from His will and ability. This is why they said: [Born and not made], as the pre-existent and eternal One, in addition to His being self-subsisting, is not made according to all rational people and those who believe in the world's eternity.
So, if the Word were united with the Messiah, who was created from Mary, and merged with him, and if it is said: The Eternal One touched the created being, stuck to him, or encountered him, this would be easier than all of this, and for this reason, indwelling is easier than unity.
Thus, saying that: He indwelled the Messiah's body and encountered him as the water mixes with milk is easier than saying: He was united with him and merged with him.
So, if it is said: Mary is the woman, companion, and wife of the Eternal One, then this proves of His coming in contact with her, touching her, and reaching her - regardless of the degree of contact between the husband and his wife - it is easier than what they said about the unity of the Eternal with the created being and their turning either into one essence, or one person, or one will.
Hence, every rational person knows that physical coupling is easier than physical labor. When a male animal copulates with a female, by only touching the female by the male, the female does not become generated from the male. So, if they allow the possibility of the pre-existent and eternal Lord having what is generated from Him and is united with it - which is incidental and created - then, it is more appropriate and likely to have someone to touch.
And if they say: The Messiah is a son only because the eternal Word, which is a son, was united with him,
we say: Then, the human with whom the Eternal One was united and whom you call "son" could be called the Eternal, and you considered him a creating god, so, what prevents you from considering the mother of this human, whom you considered to be Allah's son, Allah's companion and His wife given the fact that the Pre-existent and the Eternal One coupled with her producing what is a son for the Pre-existent and the Eternal?
[The Christians' statement: Allah is an essence.]
Someone recounted them saying: (I said: They criticize us for saying: Allah Almighty is an essence.
They said [27]: We hear about those people that they are virtuous, decent, and knowledgeable. People with such a description, who have read something of the books on philosophy and logic, are not entitled to criticize us for this, for everything in existence is either an essence or an incidental attribute. This is because whenever we examine anything, we either find it independent, not needing others for its existence, which is the "Jawhar" (essence), or it needs others for its existence and cannot be independent, which is the "‘Arad" (incidental attribute). These are only two categories, and it is impossible to have a third one. The most honorable of these two categories is the self-subsisting one that does not need others for its existence, which is the essence. i.e., the Christian scholars.
Since the Almighty Creator is the most honorable of all existents, being the cause for its existence; therefore, He must be the most honorable and the highest of all, i.e., the essence. Hence, we said: He is an essence that is not similar to the created essences, and we also said: He is something that is not like created things; otherwise, He is not self-subsisting and needs others for His existence, which is not appropriate to say about Allah Almighty.
I said to them: They say to [us] [28]: We do not call Him "essence" because the essence is what accepts incidental attributes and occupies a space; hence, He Almighty is not to be called "essence". i.e., the Muslims, and the correction is from the Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch.
They said [29]: What accepts incidental attributes and occupies a space is the dense essence; however, the subtle essence does not accept incidental attributes and does not occupy a space, like the essence of the soul, the essence of reason, the essence of light and other similar created subtle essences. i.e., the Christian scholars.
So, if the created subtle essences do not accept incidental attributes and do not occupy a space, would the Creator of the essences - the subtle and the dense - and the One Who assembles the subtle ones with the dense ones accept incidental attributes and occupy a space?! No). [30] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 423-424).
The reply to this has several aspects, which are:
[31] [The First Aspect]: It is said to them: You say that you follow the divine books. If this is the case, then you must not [32] adhere to your faith code except to the divine names reported by the prophets (peace be upon them). None of the prophets called Him "essence"; rather, it was Aristotle and his likes who called Him so and those were polytheists who worshipped idols and did not truly know Allah. They do not say that He is the Creator of the heavens and earth, or knows everything, or is the most capable of all things; rather, they used to worship the celestial planets, the terrestrial idols, and the devils, and they used to believe in sorcery and false deities. They became believers only when the religion of the Messiah (peace be upon him) was introduced to them, almost three hundred years after Alexander of Macedonia, the companion of Aristotle. Marginal remark/ The word "essence" was not reported by any of the prophets; rather, it was Aristotle who produced it, and they claim to be following the prophets. The one who verified the original copy mentioned that it is written in this way with the "yā’" letter in the written copies, which is linguistically correct as supported by the recitation of Qunbul: {Whoever "yattaqi" (fears)} [Surat Yūsuf: 90] by writing the "yā’" letter. See: Al-Hujjah lil-Qurrā’ as-Sab‘ah (4/447-448).
Therefore, your turning away from the course of the prophets and messengers to that of negating disbelievers and polytheists is evident misguidance.
It is mentioned in their books: When Paul reached Athens, the home of the philosophers, which had a house for idols, he found the following written on the door of the Areopagus: "The invisible God, who is unknown, is the One who created the world." This shows that they did not know the Lord of the worlds. So, how could they turn away from the course of Allah's messengers and prophets, like Moses, David, and Jesus, to the course of those negating disbelievers and polytheists?!
In fact, the Christians made a religion from two religions: the religion of the monotheist prophets and the religion of the polytheists. Hence, their religion contains part of what was brought by the prophets and part of what they innovated from the polytheists' religion in terms of their words and deeds. They also invented the words of the hypostases, which are not found in any of the prophets' words. Moreover, they invented the inscribed idols [33] instead of the sculptured idols, in addition to praying towards the sun, moon, and planets instead of dedicating the prayer to them, and fasting during springtime, all for the sake of combining legal religion and natural injunction, etc. i.e., statues inscribed on walls.
[34] [The Second Aspect]: If they say: "The essence of light." Marginal remark/ The general concept of the word "light" and their disagreement over all its meanings
We say:
If you mean by "light": the sun itself and the fire itself, then such are bodies that occupy a space and accept incidental attributes and not from the subtle essences that you gave as examples.
However, if you mean by "light": the rays that exist in the air, the walls, and the like, then, such is not an essence, neither subtle nor dense; rather, it is an incidental attribute that is dependent on others.
[35] [The Third Aspect]: Your statement: "The subtle essence does not accept incidental attributes" is impossible as well as false. For man's soul accepts the incidental attributes that exist in it, and the same applies to the planetary soul - for those who affirm it - that has renewable wills and perceptions. Marginal remark/ Invalidity of the claim that the subtle essence does not accept incidental attributes
According to the polemicists' terminology, the word "‘arad" means what depends on others in its existence, whether it is an intrinsic or extrinsic attribute, and this is the cause of the Christians' division, as it is the view held by the philosophers. They said: Everything in the existence must either be an essence or an incidental attribute; for whenever we examine something, we find it either independent and does not need others for its existence, which is the essence, or needs others for its existence and cannot be independent, which is the incidental attribute. They said: These are two categories, and it is impossible to have a third one.
In fact, what they said represents the same division adopted by Aristotle and his followers, as he calls the first principle: essence. It is the division adopted by all the polemicists; however, most of them do not include the Lord of the worlds under the name "essence", but some of them do that and part of the conflict in this regard is only verbal.
If it is like what they said, then the light that exists on the earth and in the air is an incidental attribute and not an independent essence; however, they considered it an essence, which is an evident contradiction.
Furthermore, the subtle essences have incidental attributes like life and knowledge, and even the Lord, according to their view, has life and knowledge. So, if they call Him "essence", then they are obliged to call His attributes "incidental attributes". This is when they say: Nothing exists except either an essence or an incidental attribute. This contradicts their statement: The existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute, as nothing among the existents could be anything except this or that. However, their words entail that they exist in Allah's essence, then how about the essence of others?!
If they say: "A‘rād" means the incidental attributes or those that exist in bodies, this will contradict their statement: [The existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute], and their statement: [The Lord is the essence of three hypostases, and the hypostasis is an entity and an attribute], and their statement: [The Lord is an essence]. Their view entails that the Lord is an essence that possesses incidental attributes, then how about others?!
Then, we say: If we assume that they believe in an essence that does not have incidental attributes, then, this is their own term in which they agree with the negaters of the divine attributes from among the philosophers like Aristotle and his followers. They say: The Lord is an essence, and He is not described with any of the affirming attributes. However, this is not the Christians' view. Thus, it became clear that: In their statement: [The Lord is an essence] and [Some essences do not possess attributes], they agree with the polytheistic philosophers, namely Aristotle and his followers, not with the Messiah and the disciples. However, they established the attributes for Allah out of conformity with the Messiah and the disciples, then they considered Him an essence and said: [The subtle essence does not have attributes]. This is the view of the polytheistic and negating philosophers. This proves what we mentioned earlier about them, i.e., they invented a religion composed of the religion of the Messiah and the disciples and from the religion of the polytheistic disbelievers and the Muslim polemicists.
If they intended this by the word "‘arad", then every essence accepts attributes.
However, if they intended by "‘arad" what the philosophers intend, i.e., the incidental attributes which they differentiate from the attributes of the soul, then this is a false division. If we assume that it is true, then the soul also accepts incidental attributes; rather, the same applies to every essence, whether subtle or dense.
Thus, their statement, "The subtle essence does not accept incidental attributes like the essence of the soul, the mind, the light and their likes of the subtle essences," is false in all cases.
Nonetheless, if they intended by "‘arad" something else, it would be of no avail to them, as those scholastic theologians who said: "The essence is what occupies a space and accepts ''‘arad"; they meant by "‘arad": what depends on other meanings, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic, and it is known that every essence has meanings. According to them, life and knowledge exist in the Almighty Creator. So, if the Almighty Creator possesses meanings and they call Him "essence", then, how could there be no meanings existing in others?!
They affirm a subtle essence that possesses no incidental attributes despite their saying: He possesses meanings, which is their own term upon which none agrees with them. Then, they contradict themselves and say: The existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute, which is a contradiction!
Calling Allah's attributes "incidental attributes" is disputable among the Muslim polemicists; some of them call them "incidental attributes", whereas others reject this term, although both groups agree that the attributes exist in Him. Most Muslim polemicists do not call Him "essence", while some of them call Him "essence". As for those who deny the existence of the attributes in Him, they call Him neither "essence" nor "body".
Those Christians contradict themselves; hence, none of the rational groups agrees with them on their way, and this will be made clear in the next aspect.
[36] The Fourth Aspect: People hold two views regarding establishing the attributes that exist in the essence of Allah Almighty, which are: Marginal remark/ The Christians' view differs from all the views held by the Muslim sects
The Muslim predecessors, their reliable scholars, and most people from among the followers of the divine religions or others, establish the existence of attributes in Allah Almighty, and hold two views regarding whether they are called "incidental attributes.
The Second View: It is the view of those who negate the divine attributes like the atheistic Jahmites and their likes from among the Muslim heretics and those who agreed with them from the philosophers, along with some Jews and Christians. According to them, meanings and attributes do not exist in Him. Thus, they do not say: Incidental attributes exist in Him.
Some of them call Him "essence" like Aristotle and his followers, and others do not call Him "essence", like the late philosophers, namely Ibn Sīna and the likes, along with most of the Muslim polemicists and others.
As for the majority of those who adopt the view stating that meanings exist in Him, some of them call them "incidental attributes", even though they do not call Him "essence", while others call Him "essence". Some negate their being called "incidental attributes", and others neither negate this nor establish it, i.e., they neither call them "incidental attributes" nor negate calling them as such or ask for detail from the one who says so about their being incidental attributes.
As for those Christians, they said: He is [the essence of three hypotheses] and they described Him with affirming attributes, which are life and speaking, and they said: [The existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute]. Thus, they were entitled to acknowledge that Allah's attributes are incidental attributes.
Then, they said: [Incidental attributes do not exist in the subtle essence] and they exalted the Lord above having incidental attributes despite their statement: He is essence. So, they contradicted themselves clearly as they combined the words of the messengers and their followers with the words of the polytheistic negating philosophers. What they received from the Messiah is true, whereas what they innovated from the words of those who opposed the messengers is false. So, their view combined the truth with falsehood, and they adopted a course that no one else has ever adopted.
This is further clarified in the following:
[37] The Fifth Aspect: What they just mentioned is a clear contradiction, as they said: [The existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute]. The self-subsisting being is the essence, while the dependence on others is the incidental attribute. Then, they said: [He is existent, alive, and speaking; having life and speech]. Marginal remark/ The Christians' contradiction in establishing an essence that does not accept incidental attributes despite their saying: Existents are divided into essences and incidental attributes, despite their belief in the hypostases.
We say: His life and speech are either an essence or an incidental attribute, not an essence because essence is an independent being and life and speech are not independent beings; rather, they depend on others. Therefore, they are from the incidental attributes. So, according to them, He must be an essence with incidental attributes even though they say: He is an essence that does not accept incidental attributes.
If it is said: They intended by saying: [does not accept incidental attributes]: what is created.
We say: This revokes their dividing of the existents into essences and incidental attributes, for the pre-existent meaning existing in Him is neither an essence nor created. So, if it is an incidental attribute, then it exists in Him and He accepts it, and if it is not an incidental attribute, then this dividing is invalid.
This is further clarified by saying: You said: [He is a living and speaking being], and said: [He is three hypostases], and said: [What is united with the Messiah is the hypostasis of the Word], and as said in the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father who controls all, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of Allah, the one born of the Father before all ages, a true god from a true god, from the essence of his father, a non-created newborn, equal to the Father in essence."
Then, you said: [The Lord is an essence] and [What occupies a space or accepts incidental attributes is the dense essence; however, the subtle essence does not accept incidental attributes and does not occupy a space like the essence of the soul, the essence of the mind and other similar subtle essences. So, if the created subtle essences do not accept incidental attributes and do not occupy a space, then how would the Creator of the essences - the subtle and the dense - and the One Who assembles the subtle ones with the dense ones accept incidental attributes and occupy a space?! Never].
Thus, you declared that He is an essence that does not accept incidental attributes. You also said: [Nothing exists except that it is either an essence or an incidental attribute. If it is an independent being that does not need others for its existence, then this is the essence; and if it needs others for its existence and cannot be independent, then this is the incidental attribute].
We say: Concerning the pre-existing and eternal son who is born from the essence of his Father, who is a non-created newborn, and who was embodied and descended, is he an independent essence or a dependent incidental attribute? This is bearing in mind that existence, according to you, is either an essence or an incidental attribute.
If you say: He is an essence, then you admit establishing two essences: the Father is an essence and the Son is an essence, and in this case, the hypostasis of life will be a third essence. This is a declaration of establishing three independent essences, which invalidates their statement: He is [one God], and He is [one essence with three attributes], and He is [one in essence and three in hypostases] as you have declared, in this sense, establishing three essences.
If you say: He is an incidental attribute existing in the essence of the Father, not a second essence, then you admit that the Lord is an essence possessing incidental attributes, although you denied this in your speech and said: [He is an essence with no incidental attributes]. You said: Among the creatures, there are essences that have no incidental attributes, then the Creator is worthier of that. This is a clear contradiction that becomes naturally evident for whoever reflects on all their statements, which entail that He is one essence with none of the incidental attributes.
They say: [One essence and three hypostases]. This begs the question whether they call them attributes, characteristics, or incidental attributes? Or they say: The hypostasis is the self and the attribute.
We say: Is the Lord, along with the hypostases, three essences? Or one essence with three attributes? Or one essence with no attributes?
If they say: Three essences, then they establish three, which invalidates their statement: [The Lord is one essence and one God] and declare establishing three gods.
On the other hand, if they say: Rather, He is one essence with three attributes, then they admit that this essence possesses attributes, and if the attributes exist in Him - while they call Him "essence" - and they say: [Every existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute], then they are essentially obliged to acknowledge that His attributes are incidental attributes. This will, thus, invalidate their statement: [that He is an essence with no incidental attributes].
But if they say: He is one essence with no attributes, then this invalidates their statement: [He possesses life and speaking]. And if they negate the attributes, then they invalidate therewith Trinity, Unity, and the Nicene Creed, along with opposing the prophets' books, which declare establishing the divine attributes, while opposing obvious reason.
What is meant here is that: they contradict themselves in an obvious manner, given the fact that they established an essence with no incidental attributes despite their saying: [The existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute] and their saying: [He is an essence of three hypostases]. So, if He has no incidental attributes, then He has no attributes. This is because the attribute is dependent on others and is not an essence. Rather, if every existent is either an essence or an incidental attribute, then it belongs to the section of the incidental attributes, not to that of the essences. Such words, thus, totally negate His having attributes at all.
[Chapter Six: The Christians' claim that perfection of the Messiah's message indicates that there is no need for Muhammad's ﷺ message]
Then, they said: (We are astonished at those people, who despite their decency and grace they have taken upon themselves, did not know that the legislations are of two types: the legislation of justice and the legislation of grace. Since the Creator is Just and Generous, it was necessary that He show His justice regarding His creatures. So, He sent Moses to the Children of Israel to establish the law of justice and He commanded them to act upon it until it became firmly engrained in their souls.
Given the fact that perfection, which is grace, cannot be established except by the most perfect of the perfect one, it was necessary that Allah Almighty be the One Who instituted it because no one is more perfect than Him. And because He is Generous, it was necessary that He give the greatest of all existents, and nothing of all the existents is greater than His Word. Hence, He gave His Word and He was united with a perceptible essence to show His ability and His munificence through it.
And since none among the creatures is more noble than the human, He was united with the human nature from the chaste lady, Virgin Mary, who was chosen above all women in the world. After such perfection, there remained nothing to be instituted because everything that preceded it requires it and what comes after perfection is not needed. This is because nothing comes after perfection that could be better; rather, it must be inferior to it or derived from it, and what is derived from it is an excess that is not needed. There is some benefit in this statement, and peace be upon those who follow the guidance.
This is part of what I learned about those people whom I saw and spoke with about Muhammad (peace be upon him). This was their argument with which they justified themselves. So, if what they mentioned is true, then praise be to Allah.
However, if it is otherwise, then our Lord writes that, as they have made me a representative, and praise be to the Lord of the worlds). [38] Epistle of Paul, Bishop of Antioch (p. 424-425) and with this text, the epistle ends.
The reply to this has several aspects, which are:
[39] The First Aspect: We say: Rather, the legislations are of three types: the legislation of justice only, the legislation of grace only, and the legislation that combines justice and grace; this type enjoins justice and recommends grace, which is the most perfect of the three. This is the legislation of the Qur’an where justice and grace are combined. Nonetheless, we do not deny the fact that Moses, as well as the Messiah (peace be upon them), enjoined justice and recommended grace. Marginal remark/ The legislation of the Qur’an combines between justice and grace.
As for those who say: The Messiah enjoined grace and made it forbidden for the oppressed one to retaliate against his oppressor, or that Moses did not recommend benevolence, such statements represent an offense against the revealed laws brought by the messengers. Instead, it could be said: The mention of justice in the Torah is more predominant, while the mention of grace in the Gospel is more predominant, and the Qur’an combines between them both in the most perfect manner.
The Qur’an clarified that the blissed ones - the dwellers of Paradise who are the allies of Allah - are of two types:
- The righteous who follow a middle course: This degree is attained by justice, which means fulfilling the duties and abandoning the prohibitions.
- The nearest ones to Allah who are the forerunners: This degree cannot be attained except by grace, which means fulfilling the duties and the recommended acts, while abandoning the prohibitions and the disliked acts.
The perfect legislation, thus, combines justice and grace, as Allah Almighty says: {If the debtor is in hardship, give him respite.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 280] This is an obligatory act of justice and whoever does not apply it deserves punishment in this world and in the Hereafter. Then, Allah says: {But if you waive it as charity, that is better for you, if only you knew.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 280] This is a recommended act of grace; whoever performs it will be rewarded and raised in status by Allah, and whoever does not perform it will not be punished.
Allah Almighty also says: {Whoever kills a believer by mistake must free a believing slave and pay blood money to his family.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 92] This is justice. Then, He says: {Unless they waive it as an act of charity.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 92] This is grace.
Moreover, Allah says: {And for wounds equal retaliation.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 45] This is justice. Then, He says: {But if anyone waives it charitably, then it will be an expiation for him.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 45] This is grace.
[40] The Second Aspect: We say: The guidance and the principles of the true religion comprised in his legislation are more perfect than those comprised in the two preceding legislations, and the kind of facilitation granted by Allah to him in making people follow him and pursue his guidance was not granted to those who came before him. Thus, the excellence of his legislation is the result of its own merit on the one hand, and the multitude of those who accepted it and the perfection of their acceptance of it on the other hand, unlike the legislations of those who came before him. Moses (peace be upon him) was sent to the Children of Israel, whose rejection and stubbornness during Moses' lifetime and after his death are well-known. The Christians even mentioned that in this book of theirs as previously mentioned. Marginal remark/ The Islamic Sharia is the most perfect among all the previous legislations.
The legislation of the Torah was not as perfect as the legislation of the Qur’an, as the Qur’an includes things that were not mentioned in the Torah, like mentioning the Hereafter and providing irrefutable evidence on this along with a detailed explanation, and describing Paradise and Hellfire.
It also includes mentioning the stories of Hūd, Sālih, Shu‘ayb, and other prophets, which were not mentioned in the Torah.
It also includes mentioning Allah's beautiful names and attributes, describing the angels and their categories, the creation of mankind and the jinn, the like of which were not detailed in the Torah.
As it includes affirming Tawhīd (monotheism) with distinct types of evidence, the like of which was not mentioned in the Torah.
It also includes mentioning people's various religions, the like of which were not mentioned in the Torah.
Moreover, it includes debating with the opponents and providing irrefutable evidence on the fundamentals of the religion, which were not mentioned in the Torah, even though no heavenly book was sent down containing more guidance than the Qur’an and the Torah.
The legislation of the Qur’an makes lawful the good things and makes unlawful the evil things, whereas the legislation of the Torah makes many of the good things unlawful as a punishment for them.
The legislation of the Qur’an states the acceptance of the blood money in case of homicide; however, this was not legislated in the Torah.
The legislation of the Qur’an includes relieving people of the burdens and the shackles that were in the Torah, which denotes the fact that Allah's favor on the people of the Qur’an is more perfect.
As for the Gospel, it does not contain an independent legislation or any mention of monotheism, the creation of the world, the prophets' stories, and their nations; rather, it refers them to the Torah on most issues. However, the Messiah made lawful for them part of what they were forbidden from, commanded them to be kind and forgiving, to tolerate harm, and to adopt asceticism regarding worldly pleasures and he gave examples for that. Most of what distinguished the Gospel from the Torah were the commendable noble morals and the recommended asceticism, which are all mentioned in the Qur’an yet in a more perfect manner.
In fact, there is nothing of the beneficial sciences and righteous acts that were mentioned in the Torah, the Gospel, and the divine scriptures except that it is mentioned in the Qur’an or what is even better.
The Qur’an contains beneficial sciences and righteous acts. These acts lead to guidance and the religion of truth, which are not found in the other two Books. However, the Christians did not follow the Torah or the Gospel. Rather, they innovated a legislation that was not brought by any of the prophets, and they laid down for Constantine the Nicene Creed and wrote for him forty books, which they called: [the Laws] and which included some of what was brought by the prophets besides many other things that contradict the prophets' legislation. They started adopting much of the religion of the polytheists, who associated other deities with Allah and rejected His messengers. By adopting such polytheistic beliefs and by altering the messengers' religion, they managed to change the legislation of the Gospel. Hence, it became confused with other legislations for most of them. So, they failed to distinguish what was abrogated by the Messiah from the law of the Torah and what he acknowledged thereof or distinguish what he legislated from what was innovated after him.
[41] The Third Aspect: Let's suppose the legislation of the two Books was sufficient. This could only be true if they were preserved and applied. However, this was not the case; many of its distinctive features were obliterated and the People of the Book strongly disagreed regarding the Messiah and others, as Allah Almighty says: {And from among those who say, “We are Christians,” We took a covenant from them, but they forgot a part of what was enjoined upon them. So, We induced hostility and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 14] Allah Almighty also says: {Mankind was just one nation.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 213] i.e., then they differed. {Then Allah sent prophets with glad tidings and warnings, and sent down to them the Scriptures in truth, to judge between people in matters over which they disputed.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 213] Marginal remark/ The legislation of the two Books was not preserved and many of its distinctive features were obliterated.
Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) at a time when none remained showing faith in what Allah sent the messengers with prior to him. Thus, He sent him after an interval between the messengers and after the obliteration of their right course when people were in dire need for a messenger, as mentioned in "Sahīh Muslim Collection" on the authority of ‘Iyād ibn Himār who reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Verily, Allah looked at the people of the earth and He hated them, both the Arabs and the non-Arabs among them, with the exception of some remnants from the People of the Book." [42] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2865).
Before the beginning of Muhammad's mission, people were either unlettered with no divine book, associating partners with the Most Compassionate and worshiping idols, or from the People of the Book who changed its meanings and rulings, distorted its lawful and unlawful rulings, and mixed its truth with falsehood as is the case now.
At that time, if someone had asked the People of the Book to make a distinction between what the prophets brought and what they innovated after them, their majority would have been unable to do that; rather, all became one religion for them.
So, Allah Almighty sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with the Book He revealed to him to confirm the scriptures that came before it and as a criterion over them, and to distinguish therewith the truth from falsehood, guidance from misguidance, and the straight path from the wrong path. Allah Almighty says: {O People of the Book, there has come to you Our Messenger, revealing to you much of what you have been concealing of the Scripture, and overlooking much. There has surely come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book, through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out of the depths of darkness to the light by His Will, and guides them to a straight path. Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly disbelieved. Say, “Who has the power to prevent Allah, if He chose to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and all those who are on earth?”} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 15-17] Until His saying: {O People of the Book, there has come to you Our Messenger, making things clear to you, after an interval between the messengers, so you do not say, “No bearer of glad tidings or a warner has ever come to us.” Now there has come to you a bearer of glad tidings and a warner. And Allah is Most Capable of all things.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 19]
[43] The Fourth Aspect: Strictness is the predominant feature in the legislation of the Torah, whereas lenience is the predominant feature in the legislation of the Gospel; however, the legislation of the Qur’an is moderate and combines between both, as Allah Almighty says: {Thus We made you a balanced nation.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 143] Marginal remark/ The legislation of the Qur’an is moderate and combines between strictness and lenience unlike other legislations.
Describing the Prophet's nation, Allah says: {Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are firm against the disbelievers and compassionate among themselves.} [Surat al-Fat'h: 29] He also says: {Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be humble towards the believers but strict towards the disbelievers.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 54] He described them by being compassionate and humble towards the believers, and by being strict and firm towards the disbelievers.
This was also the attitude of their Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), the most perfect and the best of all prophets and messengers, as he said: "I am Muhammad, Ahmad, the Prophet of mercy, the Prophet of war, and the Prophet of Repentance." [44] And I am the most smiling and the most killing. [45] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2355) and At-Tirmidhi in Ash-Shamā’il al-Muhammadiyyah no. (367). It is not authentically reported in a Marfū‘ (elevated) Hadīth describing the Prophet (ﷺ) as "the most smiling and the most killing;" rather, it was mentioned in the books of the Children of Israel. There is sufficient evidence without that part, as the Prophet (ﷺ) was described as the Prophet of mercy and the Prophet of war at the same time, which indicates perfect moderation that has made our Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) the most perfect among all the prophets and the best of all the messengers.
He described himself as the Prophet of mercy and repentance, the Prophet of war, and as the most smiling and the most killing, and this made him more perfect than the one who was sent with mostly strictness and severity, or the one who was sent with mostly lenience. Because of that, it was said that the Children of Israel suffered great humility at the hands of the Pharaoh who subjugated them and enslaved them. Thus, strictness was the predominant feature of their law, to make them strong and help them get rid of such humility. That is why, when they were commanded to engage in Jihād, they recoiled, and Moses said to them: {O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has ordained for you, and do not turn back or else you will return as losers. They said, “O Moses, there are extremely mighty people in this land; we will never enter it until they leave it. Then if they leave, only then we will enter.” Two men who feared Allah, and who had been favored by Allah said, “Enter upon them through the gate! Once you enter it, you will surely be victorious. And put your trust in Allah if you are believers.” They said, “O Moses, we will never enter it as long as they are there. Go, you and your Lord, and fight; we are staying right here!”} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 21-24]
On the other hand, a speaker from among the Companions of Muhammad (ﷺ) said to him on the Day of Badr: "By Allah, we shall not say to you what the people of Moses said to him: {Go, you and your Lord, and fight; we are staying right here}. Rather, we shall fight in front of you, behind you, on your right, and on your left. By the One Who sent you with the truth, if you order us to cross that sea and you do that, we shall cross it with you, and if you march with us to Bark al-Ghimād, we shall march with you." [46] Such a conversation took place somewhere near Badr while the sea was on the west side and Bark al-Ghimād was a place lying to the south of Makkah, in the direction of Yemen, within a several-night distance. At that time, the disbelievers were in Makkah, while his Companions were in Al-Madīnah, to the north of Makkah, in the direction of Shām. Thus, Makkah was to their south and the sea was to their west. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1779).
He said: If you asked us to enter the city of the enemy and go to that side, we would certainly do that.
They said: After Allah had granted the Children of Israel victory and made them dominant, they became haughty, their hearts became hardened, and they became so much like the people of the Pharaoh. So, Allah sent the Messiah (peace be upon him) with a message conveying lenience, forgiveness, and enjoining the act of pardoning the wrongful and enduring his abuse to make them gentler and more flexible and to help them get rid of their haughtiness and cruelty.
However, they went to extremes in lenience until they totally abandoned the act of enjoining good and forbidding evil and abandoned Jihād for the sake of Allah. They also abandoned judging between people with justice, stopped applying legal punishments, and their worshippers started adopting monasticism on an individual basis. Despite this, the Christian kings shared the Jews in haughtiness, cruelty, and judging contrary to what was revealed by Allah, besides shedding blood wrongfully. All of this was in conformity with the commands of their scholars and worshippers, or without their commands.
So, Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with the perfect and just legislation and made his nation a moderate nation, i.e., they do not go to either of the two extremes; rather, they are strict with the enemies of Allah and gentle with His allies. They adopt forgiveness and pardon when it comes to their own rights, but they seek revenge and impose punishment when it comes to Allah's rights.
This was the moral character of their Prophet as mentioned in the two "Sahīh Collections" on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) never struck anything with his hand, neither a servant nor a woman, nor an animal, nor anything except when he was conducting Jihād in the cause of Allah. He would never avenge himself concerning anything that was done to him except if the limits of Allah were transgressed. If the limits of Allah were transgressed, he would continue to be furious until he took revenge for the sake of Allah." [47] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2328).
In the "Sahīh Collection", it was reported that Anas said: "I served the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) for ten years, and not once did he say to me 'uff' (an expression of annoyance), nor did he say about something I had done, 'why did you do it?', nor about something I had not done, 'why did you not do it?'" [48] And when any of his family members blamed me for something, he would say: "Leave him alone, if something was predestined, it would happen." [49] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6038) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2309). Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (13418) and Abu Nu‘aym al-Asbahāni in Dalā’il an-Nubuwwah (p. 183).
This goes in addition to what he said in the authentic Hadīth when a woman from the nobility of the Quraysh, from Banu Makhzūm, stole and he commanded that her hand be cut off. They said: "Who could intercede for her with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)?" They replied: "None would dare to do this except Usāmah ibn Zayd." So, they spoke to him, and he interceded for her with him. Thus, he said: "O Usāmah, do you intercede regarding one of the punishments prescribed by Allah? Verily, the people before you were ruined because if a noble person among them committed a theft, they would leave him unpunished, but if a weak person among them committed a theft, they would inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, were Fātimah, the daughter of Muhammad, to commit a theft, I would cut off her hand." [50] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3475) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1688).
In fact, the lenience, pardon, forgiveness, and noble morals found in his Sharia are far greater than those in the Gospel; and the strictness, Jihād, and the infliction of the legal punishments on the disbelievers and the hypocrites therein are far greater than those in the Torah, and this represents the ultimate perfection.
Hence, it was said: Moses was sent with majesty, while Jesus was sent with beauty, and Muhammad was sent with perfection.
[51] The Fifth Aspect: Allah's favors upon His slaves include benefiting them and showing kindness towards them and they are of two types, which are: Marginal remark/ In Muhammad's message, the divine favors are perfect and continuous; warding off harms and bringing about benefits, and the need for this message is essential.
The First Type: These are favors with which He wards off harm away from them and satisfies their needs and wants, like providing them with sustenance without which they would die out of hunger, granting them victory without which their enemy would eliminate them, and providing them with guidance without which they would be misguided and lead to their doom in the Hereafter.
These kinds of favors are essential for them, and in case they do not have them, they will be afflicted with harm, either in this worldly life or in the Hereafter, or in both. Hence, in Surat an-Nahl, which is the surah of the divine favors, the fundamental favors are mentioned at the beginning while the non-essential favors are mentioned throughout the surah.
The Second Type: These are favors without which the perfection of blessings and the elevation of degrees cannot be attained. They are also of two types in the Hereafter: the righteous who are the people of the right, and the nearest ones to Allah who are the forerunners, and whoever is not among these two will be from the people of the Blazing Fire.
Given the fact that the divine favors are of two types, people needed the message of Muhammad (ﷺ) from these two aspects, and by sending him these two types of favors, they were attained.
Without him, people were extremely ignorant and misguided, whether the unlettered or the People of the Book. None remained of the People of the Book - followers of the Messiah - who still adhered to the religion that entailed happiness in the Hereafter; rather, they changed it and altered it.
Even if they did not change anything of their religion, sending him would still be the means of the perfection and continuance of favors and the elevation of the degrees of happiness that were not attained by the first Book. Therefore, sending him was the greatest blessing of the two types of blessings Allah bestowed upon the people of earth.
Whoever carefully examines the worldly conditions will realize that Allah has not bestowed upon the people of earth a blessing that is greater than the blessing of sending him (ﷺ), and those who rejected his message are among those about whom Allah says: {Did you not see those who exchanged Allah’s blessings with disbelief, and led their people to the abode of ruin?} [Surat Ibrāhīm: 28]
Hence, those who accepted this blessing were described as being grateful, as Allah Almighty says: {So that they may say, “Are these the ones whom Allah has favored among us?” Does Allah not know best those who are grateful?} [Surat al-An‘ām: 53] Allah Almighty also says: {Muhammad is no more than a messenger; there were messengers who passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels? Anyone who turns back on his heels will not harm Allah in the least, but Allah will reward those who are grateful.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 144]
[52] The Sixth Aspect: We say: Their statement: "We are astonished at those people..." until the end of the chapter, reveals ignorance and injustice and deserves the following reply: Rather, being astonished at your astonishment is obligatory and even more worthy of endless astonishment. In fact, every rational person feels astonished at whoever knows the religion of Muhammad (ﷺ), while seeking the truth, and then follows something else, and realizes that none does this except someone who is excessively ignorant and misguided, or someone who is excessively unfair and a follower of his personal desires. This is because the people on earth can be divided into two types, which are: Marginal remark/ Astonishment is due regarding whoever abandons Islam despite the testimony of all religions that it is of great benefit.
The People of the Book, who are the Jews and the Christians.
Other than the People of the Book, like the polytheists from among the Arabs, the Indians, the Turks, and others; the Magi from among the Persians and others; and the Sabians from among the philosophers and others.
The People of the Book admit that people, apart from the People of the Book, have apparently benefited from the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) who invited all the communities of the polytheists, the Magi, and the Sabians to what is better than the beliefs they adopted; rather, they were in the greatest need for his message.
As for the People of the Book: The Jews admit to us [Muslims] the Christians' need for him and that he called them to what is better than their own religion. On the other hand, the Christians admit to us the Jews' need for him and that he called them to what is better than their own religion.
Every single community on earth acknowledges the fact that Muhammad (ﷺ) called all the communities - apart from their own - to what is better than their own beliefs. This is a testimony given by all the people on earth that he invited all the people on earth to what is better than the beliefs they adopted, and the testimony of all the communities against others is accepted since they do not accuse them of something; rather, they oppose Muhammad and his nation and oppose the rest of the communities. However, their testimony in their own favor is unacceptable because they are his opponents and the opponent's testimony against his opponent is unacceptable.
Moreover, the philosophers admitted that no legislation has ever existed in the world better than his legislation. They also admitted that his legislation is better than those of Moses and the Messiah (peace be upon them). They even criticized all other legislations apart from his; however, there is no need to mention them here, unlike the legislation of Muhammad (ﷺ), as none of them criticized it except those who did not abide by the law of philosophy that entails, according to them, justice and speaking out of knowledge. As for those of them who adhered to speaking with knowledge and justice, they agree that the legislation of Muhammad (ﷺ) is the best legislation that has ever existed in the world. So, how could such legislation be a cause of astonishment?!
[53] The Seventh Aspect: We say to the People of the Book in particular: Marginal remark/ Muslims do not have the Jews' humility or the Christians' misguidance; rather, there is a community among them that adheres to the truth and rejects humiliation and misguidance.
It is said to the Jews: You are the humblest among all nations. If we assume that the religion you currently adopt is Allah's unchanged religion, then it is clear that it is defeated and overpowered all over the globe. So, how come you are astonished that Allah would send a messenger guiding to the truth and to the straight path to make it prevail over all other religions? This is so that Allah's religion, with which He sent His messengers and which He revealed in His books, becomes victorious and predominant by means of the irrefutable argument and the clear proof, as well as by the sword and the spear.
And we say to the Christians: You did not purify Allah's religion, with which He sent His messengers, from the religion of the polytheists and the negators. Rather, you introduced in your religion what you took of the fundamentals of the polytheists and the negators from among the philosophers and others. You possess no scientific argument and no power against most of the disbelievers; rather, your hearts are filled with terror, fear, and veneration of the disbelievers, the thing that makes you among the weakest of nations in terms of argument and evidence, the farthest from knowledge and clarity, and the most incapable in providing irrefutable evidence. One time you fear the disbelieving philosophers and others from among the polytheists and the negators: Either you agree with their opinions or submit to them humbly. Another time you fear the polytheists' swords, so you either give up part of your religion for their sake or submit to them in humility.
Thus, both the weakness of your argument and the weakness of authority indicate your need for guidance and the religion of truth with which Allah sent His messengers and which He revealed in His books. So, what is astonishing is how you turn away from what leads to your happiness in this world and in the Hereafter to what leads to your misery in both worlds. This is astonishing. However, nothing is astonishing about whoever believes in what leads to happiness in this world and in the Hereafter, the opposite of which leads to misery in this world and in the Hereafter.
[54] Such a condition does not apply to Muslims as there was and will always be a sect among them that adheres to guidance and the religion of truth, being predominant in argument and speech, and physical power and weaponry, until Allah inherits the earth and all those on it, and He is the best of Inheritors as proven in the "Sahīh Collections" on the authority of the Prophet (ﷺ) that he said: "A group from among my Ummah will continue to establish Allah's command, those who let them down (fail them) cannot harm them, nor those who oppose them until the Hour comes." Another wording reads: "A group from among my Ummah will continue to be victorious until the command of Allah comes.'' [55] Marginal remark/ Both the Torah and the Gospel were distorted and altered, and they do not demonstrate the sound religion, so the need for Islam is essential. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3641) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1037).
The Eighth Aspect: The way of Allah Almighty before the revelation of the Torah in case any of the prophets was rejected was to exact revenge on his enemies by inflicting His punishment on them. He destroyed the people of Noah by drowning, the people of Hūd by the furious windstorm, the people of Sālih by the huge blast, the people of Jethro by the black cloud, the people of Lot by the storm of stones, and the people of the Pharaoh by drowning. Allah Almighty says: {We gave Moses the Scripture after destroying earlier nations, as an insight for mankind, and a guidance and mercy, so that they may take heed.} [Surat al-Qasas: 43]
After revealing the Torah, He commanded the People of the Book to perform Jihād. Some of them refused to obey the command while others obeyed. Since then, the objective of the divine message could not be attained except through knowledge and ability, as Allah Almighty says: {It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all religions, and sufficient is Allah as a Witness.} [Surat al-Fat'h: 28]
Thus, their statement: The Torah brought justice and the Gospel brought grace and there is no need for another religion, if assumed to be true, could only be true if the two books were not changed and were followed in terms of knowledge and action and if their followers were granted victory and support against their opponents. However, this is not the case, as each of the two books was significantly changed and their followers were not granted victory over all the disbelievers; rather, they were overpowered by the disbelievers in most parts of the earth, like the land of Yemen, Hijāz and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, the land of Iraq, Khorasan, Morocco, the land of India, Sindh, and the Turks. The People of the Book had the Levant, Egypt, and others under their control; however, the Persians overpowered them there. Then, Allah granted the Christians victory over them, and such a victory was meant to pave the way for Islam to prevail.
When the Persian Magi defeated the Romans, this saddened the Prophet (ﷺ) and those who believed in him but the Arab polytheists, who outnumbered the believers, rejoiced at that victory. This is because the People of the Book are closer to the believers than the Magi, who are closer to the polytheists than the People of the Book. Allah promised the believers to grant the Romans victory after that, and on that day the believers would rejoice at the victory granted by Allah, relating "victory" to the name of Allah, and not saying: {at Allah's granting victory to them} because when the Romans prevailed over Persia, it was also the time when the Prophet (ﷺ) and his Companions prevailed over the polytheists and the Jews.
At that time, the Prophet (ﷺ) sent messengers inviting the Christian kings in the Levant and Egypt to believe in him. They recognized him and acknowledged the fact that he was the prophesied Prophet, and this counted as the beginning of the prevalence of his religion.
[56] The Ninth Aspect: Their statement: "Since the Creator is Just and Generous, it was necessary that He should show His justice and generosity." Marginal remark/ The laws of the Gospel do not contain justice and claiming of rights, something that people need, which is found in Islam.
We say: The generosity of the Generous does not mean forcing people to give up their rights, as the generous is the one who shows kindness to people, not the one who forces them to give up their rights. Such people claim that the laws of the Gospel obliged people to give up their rights and did not support the oppressed against his oppressor. Hence, they possess no fair rulings to use in judging between people; rather, for them, there are two rulings only:
The ruling of the church: It does not contain redressing the injustice committed against the oppressor.
The ruling of the kings: It is not a revealed legislation; rather, it depends on the kings' opinions.
This is why you find them referring people to the rulings of the Islamic Sharia concerning blood, properties, and similar cases. Even in some of their countries where the king and the soldiers are all Christians, and among them is a small group of Muslims who have a ruler, they refer people to the rulings of the Muslims' Sharia when it comes to blood and properties. This is because although it is recommended for the oppressed to pardon the oppressor in such cases, the ruler who judges between people, if he forces the oppressed to give up his right, will be judging unjustly, not with justice.
In fact, if the heir of every murdered person is ordered not to retaliate against the murderer, and every creditor is ordered not to request his money from his debtor; rather, he should leave it to his choice, and every insulted and physically abused person is ordered not to seek redressing the injustice committed against him, then nothing will deter the oppressors, and the strong will wrong the weak and corruption will spread on earth. Allah Almighty says: {Were it not for Allah to repel some people by others, the earth would be filled with corruption.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 251] So, there must be legislation that includes judging with justice, and it is necessary, despite this, to encourage people to pardon and adopt grace.
This is the Sharia of Islam as clarified in the previously mentioned verses like His saying: {And for wounds equal retaliation. But if anyone waives it charitably, then it will be an expiation for him.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 45] {If the debtor is in hardship, give him respite until it is easy for him to pay back. But if you waive it as charity, that is better for you.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 280] And His saying: {And pay blood money to his family unless they waive it as an act of charity.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 92] Anas said: "No case requiring legal retribution was ever brought to the Prophet (ﷺ) except that he would order to pardon." [57] So, he used to order pardoning without making it obligatory upon people. This is why when Barīrah was emancipated and was entitled to annul her marriage and her husband did not want her to leave him, the Prophet interceded with her on his behalf, and she said: "Are you ordering me to do so?" He replied: "No, I am only an intercessor." [58] So, he did not make it obligatory upon her to accept his intercession. Narrated by Ad-Diyā’ al-Maqdisi in "Al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah Collection" no. (2337), Abu Dāwūd in his "Sunan Collection" no. (4497), and Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (13220). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (5283) and Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4273).
[59] The Tenth Aspect: Their statement: "Given the fact that perfection, which is grace, cannot be set up except by the most perfect of the perfect." Marginal remark/ The legislation that combines justice and grace is more entitled to being attributed to Allah than the one that did not combine them both.
We say: Justice and grace cannot be legislated except by Allah. Thus, the law of the Torah was not legislated except by Allah, and the law of the Gospel was not legislated except by Allah Almighty.
This is further clarified by the fact that Allah spoke to Moses directly from the tree; however, their best argument to prove the divinity of the Messiah was their claim that Allah spoke to people from the Messiah's human aspect just as he spoke to Moses from the tree. It is well-known for every rational person that - if it is true - that His speaking to Moses from the tree is the greatest speech Allah has spoken to His slaves, so, how could it be said that the law of justice has not been legislated by Allah Almighty?!
Then, we say: Rather, the law of justice is more entitled to being attributed to Allah than the law of grace, for enjoining benevolence and forgiveness is something that could be practiced by anyone; however, knowing justice and acting upon it in judging between people is something that cannot be practiced except by few. This is why there are many people who can bring about reconciliation between people with benevolence; however, those who are good at judging between them with justice are only few. How could it be said that the one who enjoins the law of grace is Allah, not the One who enjoins the law of justice?! In fact, Allah sent the messengers and revealed the books so that the people may uphold justice, as Allah Almighty says: {We have sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Scripture and the criteria of justice, so that the people may uphold justice. And We sent down iron, in which there is great might and benefits for people, so that Allah may make known those who help His cause and His messengers without seeing Him. Indeed, Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 25]
As for the Messiah's command for the oppressed to forgive his oppressor, it does not indicate its obligation in such a way that whoever does not carry it out will be worthy of dispraise and punishment; rather, it is something recommended and whoever applied it became worthy of praise and reward. On the other hand, Moses (peace be upon him) made justice obligatory, so whoever abandoned it deserved dispraise and punishment. This way, there is no inconsistency between enjoining justice and recommending grace. However, enjoining justice is coupled with warning in case of being abandoned, whereas recommending grace is coupled with encouragement and motivation to adopt it. So, the former involves fear along with the hope therein, whereas the latter involves hope without fear.
Hence, the Messiah (peace be upon him) said: {I was witness over them as long as I was among them. But when You took me up, You Yourself were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness over all things. If You punish them, they are Your slaves; if You forgive them, You are indeed the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 117-118]
For this reason, it was said that the Messiah (peace be upon him) was sent to complement the Torah just as the voluntary acts of worship come after the obligations as mentioned in Sahīh al-Bukhāri on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Verily Allah said: 'Whoever shows enmity to a pious worshiper of Mine, I declare war against him. My slave does not draw near to Me with anything like performing what I have made obligatory for him. My slave continues to draw near to Me by doing supererogatory deeds until I love him. When I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask Me for something, I would surely give it to him, and were he to seek refuge with Me, I would surely grant him refuge. I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of my believing slave, for he hates death, and I hate to hurt him, and he cannot escape it.'" [60] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6502) with a slight difference in the wording.
Otherwise, if it is said: The Messiah (peace be upon him) made it obligatory upon the oppressed to pardon his oppressor, i.e., he will deserve to be threatened, dispraised, and punished if he does not pardon him, then this entails that whoever seeks retaliation against the oppressor becomes an oppressor himself worthy of dispraise and punishment. In fact, this is considered a second oppression for the oppressed who sought retaliation, i.e., he was first wronged by the oppressor and because of retaliating against him, he was wronged a second time. So, this is an act of oppression practiced on a just person who sought retaliation against his oppressor.
How beautiful the words of Allah are, as He says: {Whatever you have been given is but a short enjoyment of the life of this world, but what is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord; and those who avoid major sins and shameful deeds, and when they are angered, they forgive; and those who respond to their Lord and establish prayer, and conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and spend out of what We have provided for them; and those who retaliate fairly when oppressed. The retribution of harm is its equivalent harm, but whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, his reward is with Allah. Indeed, He does not like the wrongdoers. But whoever retaliates after being wronged, there is no blame on them. Blame is only on those who wrong people and transgress in the land without right. For such there will be a painful punishment. But whoever observes patience and forgives, it is indeed a matter of great resolve.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 36-43]
And He says: {That is so. Whoever retaliates against an aggressive act with its like and is wronged again, Allah will surely help him. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.} [Surat al-Hajj: 60]
These are the best, greatest and most just words that could ever be said, as He legislated justice by saying: {The retribution of harm is its equivalent harm.} Then, He recommended grace by saying: {But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, his reward is with Allah. Indeed, He does not like the wrongdoers.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 40]
On recommending pardon, He mentioned that the one who seeks retaliation is not to be blamed, so that it would not be thought that pardon is obligatory, as He says: {But whoever retaliates after being wronged, there is no blame on them.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 41] Then, He made it clear that all the blame falls on the wrongdoers, as He says: {Blame is only on those who wrong people and transgress in the land without right. For such there will be a painful punishment.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 42] After releasing them of blame, He encouraged them to adopt patience and pardon by saying: {But whoever observes patience and forgives, it is indeed a matter of great resolve.} [Surat ash-Shūra: 43]
Indeed, this is the best and most beautiful, revealed law. It recommends patience, forgiveness, pardon, and reconciliation as a kind of encouragement while mentioning their virtues, excellent features, and desirable outcome, and releases the one who seeks retaliation against his oppressor of all blame and censure and clarifies that there is nothing wrong with him and he is not to be blamed if he retaliates after being wronged.
Could there be a legislation that blames the one who seeks retaliation despite his just cause while it does not blame the wrongdoer despite his injustice?!
Thus, it became known that the pardon enjoined by the Messiah does not entail that the one who abandons it will deserve dispraise and punishment; rather, he will be deprived of the reward and the recompense of the one who forgives and does good, which is true and does not contradict the law of the Torah. Moreover, it became known that the law of the Gospel did not contradict the law of the Torah; rather, they were derived from them and complemented them. Hence, their claim that Allah legislated the law of the Gospel apart from the law of the Torah is the statement of the most ignorant and the most misguided among people. This is why such a statement was derived from their view on Unity, and that the Messiah is Allah, and such misguidance entailed such an impossible statement. [61] Here the comment of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) on the full epistle of Paul, the Bishop of Antioch, comes to an end. Then Ibn Taymiyyah tackled two issues: First: Answering one of the Christians' popular questions regarding the authenticity of one of the prophets' prophethoods. Second: A detailed account on the proofs of prophethood with which he completed the book.
[The Christians stipulating the prophets' mention of Muhammad (ﷺ) as a condition of the authenticity of his prophethood]
There is a popular question among the Christians, namely that some of them say: No prophecies were given by the prophets about Muhammad (ﷺ) unlike the Messiah about whom the prophets gave prophecies. They claimed that the one who is not prophesied is not a prophet. This question comes in two forms, which are:
First: He is not a prophet unless he is prophesied.
Second: The one prophesied is better and more perfect than the one who is not prophesied, and this is one of the ways of proving the Messiah's prophethood and it is unique to him. And you said: There is no way through which the prophethood of any prophet is proven except that Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood is proven through this exact way and even better.
As for the second question, it deserves an answer.
[62] The first one, although we shall give them a reply, yet do we have to reply to it? There are two opinions regarding this, based on a principal rule, which is: Is giving a notification for the abrogating law a condition for abrogation? [63] The Muslim polemicists have two opinions here, which are: Marginal remark/ Ruling on giving a notification about the abrogating ruling Concerning this issue, see: Qawāti‘ Al-Adillah fil-Usūl by As-Sam‘āni (1/423) and Al-Wādih Fi Usūl Al-Fiqh by Abu al-Wafā’ (4/ 254-255).
First: If He wants to abrogate a previously legislated ruling, then He must notify the addressees that He will abrogate it so as not to think that this ruling is still effective and, thus causing them to be ignorant.
Second: This is not a condition.
Moreover, is it necessary to give a prophecy about whoever was sent with divine legislation after Moses? There are two opinions in this regard.
Anyway, according to Muslim scholars, it is certain that the Messiah (peace be upon him) prophesied about Muhammad (ﷺ), as Allah Almighty says: {And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O Children of Israel, I am truly a messenger of Allah to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger after me whose name will be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is clear magic.”} [Surat as-Saff: 6]
If so, we say: It is known, according to the unanimous agreement of the followers of the divine religions, that it is not a condition for every prophet to be prophesied by the prophet preceding him, as prophethood is established without that, especially since there is no mention of prophecies about Noah, Abraham, and others by those preceding them. Similarly, most of the prophets of the Children of Israel were not preceded by prophecies about them, since they were not sent with an abrogating legislation like David, Isaiah, and others.
However, this could be claimed about those prophets who abrogated the legislation of the prophets preceding them, like the Messiah, who abrogated some of the rulings of the Torah, and Muhammad (ﷺ). In this case, Muslim scholars as well as others dispute: Is it a condition to be informed of that before the abrogation? They hold two opinions in this regard.
Muslims say: The legislations of the Torah and the Gospel were not legislated to be absolute; rather, they were restricted until the arrival of Muhammad (ﷺ). This is like the ruling that is meant to last for a limited time that is unknown, as Allah Almighty says: {But pardon and overlook until Allah passes His decree.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 109] And He says: {Confine them to their homes until they die or Allah ordains for them [another] way.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 15] Such cases are permissible according to the unanimous agreement of the followers of the divine religions.
Is this called abrogation? There are two opinions in this regard, which are:
- It was said: It is not called abrogation like the known time limit, as Allah Almighty says {And eat and drink until you see the light of dawn distinct from the darkness of night, then complete the fast until nightfall.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 187] According to the people's unanimous agreement, the fact that fasting no longer becomes obligatory when night falls is not called abrogation. Thus, it was said: that the unknown time limit is like the known time limit.
- It was said: Rather, this is called abrogation; however, such an abrogation is permissible according to the consensus of the followers of the divine religions: the Jews and others. Thus, it proves the prophethood of the Messiah and Muhammad (peace be upon them both) were not contingent on the permissibility of the disputed abrogation; as this is restricted to the general rulings, whereas the preceding legislations were not meant to be absolute.
Whether it is said: that notification of the abrogating law is obligatory, or that it is not obligatory, the followers of the early divine legislation were notified that it would be abrogated. This is because Moses prophesied the Messiah and other prophets, and both Moses and the Messiah and other prophets prophesied Muhammad (ﷺ). Although this is the reality, proving the prophethood of the Messiah and Muhammad (peace be upon them both) is not contingent on proving the disputed abrogation.
[64] Here we say: Acknowledging the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) and the Messiah is not contingent on knowing that the prophets preceding them prophesied them; rather, there are many ways of verifying prophethood. So, if his prophethood is proven through one of the ways, then his prophethood is proven to whomever knew about that. If it is not known that those who preceded him prophesied about him; however, it is said: If it is a must or a fact that those who preceded him must inform people of his coming and that the notification of abrogating the preceding legislation is also a must or a fact, then this becomes a condition for prophethood and whoever knows about his prophethood knows that this must have happened, even if it was not reported to him. Marginal remark/ The ways of verifying prophethood are many, and prophecy is not essential for prophethood.
If the disputant says: The fact that those preceding him did not inform about him might discredit his prophethood, and if we assume that this is true and the notification is essential for prophethood, then this will be a cause for discredit.
We say: The reply to this has two aspects, which are:
The First Aspect: We say: If his prophethood is known through establishing the signs of prophethood, then the prophecy of those who preceded him either entails his prophethood - by necessity or by reality - or does not entail it.
If it does not entail it, then its occurrence is not essential.
However, if it entails it, then it must have happened, even if it was not reported to us, given the fact that not everything said by the early prophets is known to us or reached us, and not everything said by the Messiah and the preceding prophets reached us. This is an indisputably established fact.
If we assume that this does not exist in the current books, it does not entail that the Messiah and those preceding him did not mention him; rather, they could have mentioned him but it was not reported, or it could be reported in books other than these ones, or it could be mentioned in copies different from these copies and was removed from some of them, and then copies were made of the ones from which such a part was removed and the copies which have it are different. All these are common probabilities, and none can decisively negate them.
If we assume that this is not found in the books, which are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, it will not be decisive proof that the prophets did not prophesy him. If the Jews cannot state with certainty that the prophets did not prophesy the Messiah, and the People of the Book cannot state with certainty that the prophets did not prophesy Muhammad, then they have no sure knowledge that this did not happen; rather, all they have is doubt, for they sought such information but did not find it.
In fact, the proofs on the prophethood of the Messiah and Muhammad are irrefutable and conclusive and cannot be discredited because of doubt, for doubt cannot remove certainty, especially in the presence of the multiple traditions stating that Muhammad's name was explicitly written in what was reported from the prophets. An example of this is what was mentioned in the "Sahīh al-Bukhāri Collection" that it was said to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr: Tell us about some of the description of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in the Torah. So, he said: "Verily, he is described in the Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Qur’an: O prophet, We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner, and as a protection for the unlettered. You are My slave and My messenger. I named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (one who relies upon Allah). You are neither coarse, nor harsh, nor [one who] shouts in the markets. You do not return evil with evil; rather, you expel evil with what is good, and you pardon and forgive. I shall not cause him to die until I straighten by him the crooked religion, thus open by him blind eyes, deaf ears, and covered hearts by making them say: There is no god but Allah." [65] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2125).
The words "the Torah", "the Gospel", "the Qur’an", and "the Psalms" could refer to those specific books or could refer to the divine books in general, in which case the word "the Qur’an" could refer to the Psalms and others, as mentioned in the authentic Hadīth where the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The recitation of the Qur’an was made light and easy for David that he used to finish the recitation during the time between having his riding animal saddled and riding it." [66] This means: His Qur’an, which is the Psalms, and not the Qur’an that was revealed only to Muhammad. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3417).
Another example is what was mentioned about the description of Muhammad's nation: "Their Gospels are in their hearts." [67] Here, He called the book that they recite, which is the Qur’an: Gospels. Narrated by At-Tabarāni in "Al-Kabīr Collection" no. (10046).
Likewise, the following was mentioned in the Torah: "I will raise up for the Children of Israel a prophet from among their brothers. I will reveal to him a Torah like the Torah of Moses." [68] Here, He called the second book: Torah. See: Book of Deuteronomy: (18:18).
His saying: "Tell me about the description of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in the Torah" could refer to: all the preceding books that are all called Torah and in some of which this is mentioned. It could also refer to: the Torah specifically, which denotes that this is mentioned in a copy of the Torah from which the other copies were not copied, for the current copies of the Torah that we know about do not have this; however, this is found in the scripture of Isaiah that reads: "Here is my servant, the one by whom I became delighted; I will send down my revelation on him, and he will bring justice to the nations and recommend for them the testaments. He does not laugh, and his voice is not heard in the markets. He opens the blind eyes, the deaf ears, and the covered hearts. What I give him I shall not give to anyone else. He praises Allah in a new manner. He comes from the farthest end of the earth. The earth rejoices and its dwellers declare the oneness of Allah on every mound and proclaim His greatness on every hillock. He does not weaken, get defeated or incline towards personal desires. He does not humiliate the righteous, who are like a weak stalk; rather, he strengthens the people of the truth. He is the support for the modest and he is the light of Allah that does not go out. The sign of his authority is on his shoulders." [69] Such a description is applicable to Muhammad (ﷺ) and his nation, and it is one of the greatest prophecies made by the preceding prophets about him. See: Book of Isaiah (42: 1-15).
The second aspect of the answer: To clarify the fact that the preceding prophets prophesied about him, which is independent evidence on his prophethood and one of the greatest signs of his divine message.
This also indicates the prophethood of this prophet, as he reported something from the unseen along with claiming prophethood. It indicates the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) because it was reported by one whose prophethood is established. This is in case such a report was narrated by one whom we do not recognize as a prophet and who is not mentioned in our Book.
As for those whose prophethood was established through other ways like Moses and the Messiah, here the proofs support one another in favor of one indication. It also includes the fact that whatever proves others' prophethood proves his prophethood, and this is a second reply for those who consider this a necessary condition of his prophethood.
[Ways of knowing the prophets' prophecies about Muhammad (ﷺ)]
The fact that the preceding prophets prophesied about him is known from several aspects, which are:
The First Aspect: What is mentioned about him in the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book.
The Second Aspect: The fact that those who knew about such books and other books of the People of the Book, whether from those who embraced Islam or not, informed others of what they found mentioned about him in such books.
This is like what was mass transmitted from the Ansār (supporters) that their neighbors from among the People of the Book used to speak about his mission, that he is the Messenger of Allah, and that he is mentioned in their books. In fact, this was one of the greatest causes that made the Ansār believe in him when he invited them to Islam, as they believed in him and pledged allegiance to him without any fear or desire. That is why it was said: Al-Madīnah was conquered by the Qur’an, not by the sword like other places.
This is also like what was mass transmitted about the Christians' report on his being mentioned in their books like Heraclius, the King of the Romans, Al-Muqawqis the King of Egypt and the Ruler of Alexandria, Negus the King of Abyssinia, and those who came to him in Makkah.
Allah mentioned that about them in the Qur’an while saying about the Jews: {Now that there has come to them a Book from Allah, confirming that which is with them – although they used to pray for victory over the disbelievers in the past. But when there came to them what they recognize [to be true], they rejected it. May the curse of Allah be upon the disbelievers!} [Surat al-Baqarah: 89]
Abu al-‘Āliyah and others said: "When seeking victory over the Arab polytheists, they - i.e., the Jews - would make mention of Muhammad's (ﷺ), saying: O Allah, send this prophet whose mention is written in our books so we can torture and kill the polytheists. Then, when Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) and they found that he was not from among them, they disbelieved in him out of envy of the Arabs, even though they knew that he was the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). So, Allah revealed these verses {But when there came to them what they recognize [to be true], they rejected it."} [Surat al-Baqarah: 89] [70] See: Tafsīr at-Tabari (2/240) and Tafsīr ibn Kathīr (1/326).
Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: "A Jewish boy used to serve the Prophet (ﷺ) and he became sick. The Prophet (ﷺ) went to visit him and found his father sitting near his head and reciting the Torah. The Prophet said to him: 'O Jew, by Allah Who sent the Torah on Moses, do you find my description and my coming mentioned in the Torah?' He replied in the negative, but the boy said: 'Yes, O Messenger of Allah, by Allah, we find your description and your coming mentioned in the Torah and I testify that there is no god but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah.' Thereupon, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Move this man away from his head and be in charge of your brother.'" [Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi with an authentic Isnād] [71] Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah (6/272).
Allah Almighty says about the Christians: {When they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of recognizing the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we believe, so record us among those who testify [to the truth].”} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 83] He Almighty also says: {As for those whom We gave the Scripture before this [Qur’an], they do believe in it. When this [Qur’an] is recited to them, they say, “We believe in it, for it is the truth from our Lord.”} [Surat al-Qasas: 52-53]
As in the two "Sahīh Collections" from the Hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās on the authority of Abu Sufyān ibn Harb when he spoke to him about Heraclius and mentioned that Heraclius asked him about the traits of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he said: "If what you say about him is true, then indeed, he is a prophet, and I knew that he was coming but I did not think that he would be from among you. If I knew that I could reach him, I would love to meet him, and if I had been with him, I would have washed his feet (out of reverence)." [72] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4553) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1773).
Likewise, when the Companions emigrated to Abyssinia to escape the polytheists' persecution for fear of their religion and when they recited the Qur’an to Negus, he said: "He took a stick and held it between his two fingers and said: 'Jesus, son of Mary, does not exceed what you have said by the length of this stick.' His chiefs around him snorted when he said this, and he said: 'Even if you snort, go, for you are safe in my land.'" [73] Meaning: you are safe. Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (1764).
He said this because the Quraysh sent him gifts and asked him to extradite those Muslims to them, saying: They have parted with our religion and have opposed your religion.
Ibn Is'hāq said: "Twenty Christian men - or around that number - came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while he was in Makkah when news about him was spread in Abyssinia. They found him in the assembly, so they talked to him and asked him. Meanwhile, some men from the Quraysh were in their gatherings. When they were done with asking the Prophet (ﷺ) about what they wanted, he called them to Allah Almighty and recited the Qur’an to them. On hearing it, their eyes overflowed with tears, and they responded to him and believed in him. They acknowledged him because of his description that was mentioned in their book.
After leaving him, Abu Jahl along with some individuals of the Quraysh got in their way and said: May Allah disappoint you, O people of the caravan. You were sent by people from your own religion to bring them news about this man, and once you met him, you parted with your religion and believed in what he said to you. We know of no caravan that is more foolish than you - or like what they said to them. So, they replied: Peace be upon you, we shall not return your insult; we are responsible for our deeds, and you are responsible for your deeds. It is said that the following verse was revealed in relation to them: {When this [Qur’an] is recited to them, they say, “We believe in it, for it is the truth from our Lord. We had already submitted [as Muslims even] before this.”}" [74] Sīrat ibn Is'hāq (4/200) and see: Sīrat ibn Hishām (1/391).
[75] The Third Aspect: It is the fact that he himself reported this more than once in the Qur’an. This is besides his seeking the testimony of the People of the Book and his stating that he was mentioned in their books. This leads the rational person to the fact that he was mentioned in their books. In fact, all those who knew Muhammad, whether believers or disbelievers, had no doubt that he was among the most rational of the people of the earth. Even those who disbelieved in him did not have the least doubt that he possessed the experience, knowledge, and skill that necessitated to undertake such a great matter [of prophethood], the like of which has never happened to anyone before him or after him. Hence, it is indisputable that he would not do this or report it, especially that he was the most keen on making people believe him, the most knowledgeable about the ways that would make him be believed, and the farthest from doing what would make him disbelieved. Marginal remark/ The Qur’an informing of the prophecies
Thus, had he not known that he was mentioned in their books, he would not have mentioned it time and again. Furthermore, he would not have taken that as evidence and not have displayed it to his supporters and his opponents, his allies, and his enemies. It is because this is something that only the least rational of people would do, given the fact that this would reveal his lying before those who believed in him and those who knew him, which was contrary to his objective. He would be like one who wanted witnesses testifying to his truthfulness and, thus, asked those whom he knew to not lie and those whom he knew that they were not witnesses and did not witness his case and said: This one and this one would testify in my favor, as they witnessed this case. However, such people would say: We would not testify in his favor as we did not witness this case. This is not something that any rational person would do, knowing that they were not present and would belie him and would not testify in his favor.
[76] The Fourth Aspect: We say: After recognizing the signs of his truthfulness and his informing of the fact that he was mentioned in the preceding books and that the prophets prophesied about him, it became known that this was the case. However, this is not to be mentioned except after providing separate evidence on his prophethood. Marginal remark/ His informing of the prophecies comes after establishing the proofs of his truthfulness.
The first aspect is the strongest argument against the People of the Book and the strongest signs of his prophethood.
More than one scholar had extracted from the books, which are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, the prophecies of his prophethood in many places, and authored books on that. Such prophecies in these books are like the ones made about the Messiah (peace be upon him).
[77] The Fifth Aspect: We say: It is known that the prevalence of Muhammad's (ﷺ) religion all around the globe is the most significant event that occurred on earth as no other religion is known to be widely spread and perpetual like his religion. Marginal remark/ The appearance of Muhammad's religion necessitates its being prophesied by the preceding prophets because they prophesied those who are inferior to him like the Antichrist.
Even though Moses' legislation lasted for a long time, it was not as widely spread as this one; rather, it was prevalent the most in some regions of the Levant.
As for the Messiah's legislation, it had no authority before Constantine; rather, its followers were scattered in some Roman countries and others. They were helpless as their chiefs or commoners were being frequently killed. When it became widespread, its followers dispersed into various sects, each of which accused the others of disbelief.
However, the legislation of Muhammad (ﷺ) became globally prevalent, in the east, the west, and the middle of the earth. His nation also prevailed over the Christians in their best and most significant lands, such as the Levant, Egypt, the Peninsula, and others. Moreover, his legislation has lasted, as it has been there for more than seven hundred years today. [78] It is still going on and his religion is still spreading all over the earth. In fact, it has lasted for seven hundred years after those words of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) without any cessation. Moreover, it is growing and will continue until the establishment of the Hour by the will and victory of Allah Almighty.
It is well-known that one who claims prophethood, be he truthful or a liar, must be prophesied by the prophets. This is because they informed others of the appearance of the Antichrist, the liar, to warn people against his trial and assure them that he is a liar and that he will have such powers that will infatuate people, even though the Antichrist will last for a short time.
So, if what is said by those who reject Muhammad is true and he is a liar and not a messenger, then his trial is far graver than that of the Antichrist from many aspects because his followers are significantly much more than those who follow the Antichrist.
If he was a liar, then those who were infatuated by him are much more than those infatuated by the Antichrist. Hence, warning against him would be more important than warning against the Antichrist, as no liar has ever prevailed and lasted in such a manner since the time of Adam and until today. So, how could the prophets forget to warn against such a person if he were a liar?!
If, on the other hand, he is truthful, then prophesying him to make people believe in him is the most important of the prophets' prophecies. Thus, it becomes known that he must have been mentioned in the previous books.
In addition, many places in the books, more than one hundred, were found and taken as evidence that he was mentioned. It was also mass transmitted from many of the People of the Book that he is mentioned in their books, and it was mass transmitted as well from many of those who embraced Islam that the cause behind their embracing Islam, or one of the greatest causes was knowing that he was mentioned in the previous books:
Either for being mentioned in the books, like many of those who embraced Islam in the past and present.
Or because of the valid reports with them from the People of the Book like the Ansār (the Helpers). This is because one of the greatest causes behind their embracing Islam was what they used to hear about his description from their neighbors from among the People of the Book. So, they were waiting for him and some of the best people among them only chose to live in Yathrib, despite its severity, and left the Levant, despite its prosperity, for one reason, which was waiting for this Arab Prophet who would come from the progeny of Ishmael.
None has ever reported from the books that he was mentioned in any way that denotes dispraise, an accusation of lying, or a warning as in the case of the Antichrist.
So, if those who extracted his mention from the books of the People of the Book and those who heard about him from the scholars of the People of the Book mention him in a way that denotes praise and commendation, then it becomes known that the preceding prophets mentioned him in this manner and not in a manner that denotes dispraise and deficiency.
All those who claimed prophethood and were praised and applauded by the prophets proved to be truthful in their claim of prophethood, as it is impossible for the prophets to praise someone who lies in claiming prophethood: {Who does greater wrong than the one who fabricates lies against Allah or says, “A revelation has come to me” – whereas nothing has been revealed to him.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 93]
This proves that the prophets must have mentioned him and informed others about him. They did not mention him except in a way that denotes praise and commendation, not dispraise and deficiency. This, along with claiming prophethood, cannot occur unless he is truthful in claiming prophethood. So, it became clear that they prophesied his prophethood, which is the point that we wanted to prove.
Moreover, the Book with which he was sent is full of testimonies given by the divine books about him, and the current books contain many things that attest in his favor from various aspects, besides the mass transmissions from those who studied such books, and there are mass transmitted reports from those who embraced Islam concerning this. All this entails certainty that he is mentioned in such books in a manner that indicates his truthfulness in claiming prophethood, and nothing indicates his lying or a warning against him therein, which is the point we wanted to prove.
[Conclusion about the indications of prophethood]
[Introduction]
[79] The signs and proofs indicating the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) are numerous and diverse and they are more numerous and greater than the signs of other prophets. Some of the polemicists call them "miracles", and they are also called "indications of prophethood", "signs of prophethood" and the like. Marginal remark/ The word "signs" denotes the target meaning better than the word "miracles".
If such words are used to refer to the prophets' signs, they will be a better indicator of the target meaning than the word Mu‘jizāt (miracles). This is why, the word "miracles" is not found in the Qur’an and the Sunnah; however, they contain the following words: Āyah (sign), Bayyinah (clear proof), Burhān (conclusive evidence), as Allah Almighty says in the story of Moses: {These are two proofs from your Lord} [Surat al-Qasas: 32] about the staff and the hand. Also, Allah Almighty says about Muhammad (ﷺ): {O people, there has come to you conclusive evidence from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 174]
As for the word Mu‘jiz, it denotes causing failure to others, as Allah Almighty says: {And they will not cause failure (prevent Allah from what He wills).} [Surat az-Zumar: 51] And He Almighty says: {And you will not cause failure [to Allah] upon the earth or in the heaven.} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 22]
As for the word Āyāt (signs), it is frequently used in the Qur’an, as Allah Almighty says: {When a sign comes to them, they say, “We will never believe until we are given the like of what was given to the messengers of Allah.” Allah knows best where to place His message.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 124] Allah Almighty also says: {We gave Moses nine clear signs.} [Surat al-Isrā’: 101] And He says about Muhammad: [80] {No sign ever comes to them from their Lord except that they turn away from it. They rejected the truth when it came to them, but soon they will face the consequences of what they used to ridicule.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 4-5] [81] Marginal remark/ Types of the signs in terms of their continuity and duration See the remaining verses: [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 13], [Surat al-An‘ām: 25], [Surat Yūnus: 15, 101], [Surat Yūsuf: 105], [Surat al-Mu’minūn: 50], [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 50-51], [Surat Fussilat: 53], and [Surat al-Fat'h: 20].
The signs are of two types, which are:
- What had already passed and became known through reports like the miracles of Moses and Jesus.
- What still exists until today? The Qur’an is among the signs of the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ), the knowledge and faith of his followers, the Sharie' he brought, the signs that Allah reveals from time to time in the form of Karāmāt (supernatural abilities) granted to the righteous from among his nation, and the occurrence of what he had foretold, as he said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Turks." [82] And he also said: "The Hour will not be established until a fire emerges from the land of Hijaz and throws light on the necks of camels in Busra." [83] In fact, this fire already emerged in the year 655 and the people in Busra were able to see the necks of camels in its light. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2928) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2912). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (7118) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no, (2902).
This also includes the prevalence of his religion through irrefutable argument, conclusive evidence, physical power, and arms. Moreover, it includes the punishments and penalties that encompass his enemies, etc. It also includes his description in the books of the prophets preceding him, etc.
The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, and it includes the preaching and the irrefutable argument, and it is unique to him as proven in the "Sahīh Collection" that he said: "There was no prophet among the prophets but was given signs because of which people believed. However, I was given divine inspiration that Allah revealed to me. So, I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the others on the Day of Judgment." [84] Narrated by Al-Bukhār in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4981) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (152).
[Types of the Prophet's (ﷺ) signs]
The First Type: Signs relevant to knowledge, reports, and Mukāshafah (unveiling).
The Second Type: Signs relevant to ability, influence, and action.
The Qur’an contains many reports about the future, as Allah Almighty says: {Alif Lām Mīm. The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land, but they will gain victory after their defeat within a few years. To Allah belongs the whole matter before and after [the victory].} [Surat ar-Rūm: 1-4] And the Romans did gain victory over Persia within a few years.
Also, Allah Almighty says: {Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous deeds that He will make them successors in the land, as He made those who came before them, and He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and He will surely change their state of fear into security.} [Surat an-Nūr: 55] And what Allah Almighty foretold here actually took place.
Allah Almighty says: {It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all religions, and sufficient is Allah as a Witness.} [Surat al-Fat'h: 28] This happened just as Allah Almighty informed and promised.
Allah Almighty says: {Say, “If all humans and jinn were to come together to produce something similar to this Qur’an, they would not be able to produce the like of it.”} [Surat al-Isrā’: 88] and this is what happened.
Allah Almighty also says: {If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down upon Our slave, then produce a chapter like it and call upon your helpers other than Allah, if you are truthful. But if you did not do it, and you can never do it; then beware of the Fire whose fuel will be people and stones.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 23-24] So, He said that they would not be able to do this and that is what happened.
Allah Almighty reported that He said to the Messiah: {And make those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 55] And it happened as reported.
Addressing the Jews, Allah Almighty says: {Say, “If the Home of the Hereafter with Allah is only for you [O Israelites] among all humans, then wish for death if you are truthful.” But they will never wish for that because of what their hands have sent forth. And Allah is All-Knowing of the wrongdoers. And you will surely find them the greediest people for life, even more than the polytheists.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 94-96] He Almighty also says: {Say, “O you who are Jews, if you claim that you alone are Allah’s allies apart from all other people, then wish for death, if you are truthful. But they will never wish for it because of what their hands have sent forth. And Allah is All-Knowing of the wrongdoers.} [Surat al-Jumu‘ah: 6-7] Here Allah Almighty informed that the Jews will never wish for death and, indeed, this is what happened as the Jews never wish for death, which is evidence from two aspects:
- His informing them that this will never happen.
- Allah Almighty dismissed the Jews' motives to wish for death even though this was within their ability. This is among the most amazing supernatural incidents, and despite their keenness on discrediting it, their motives did not appear to discredit it by simply expressing their wish for death.
[First: The Prophets' Prophecies]
[Prophecies of the Torah]
[Prophecy [1]]
The following was mentioned in the Torah - and it was translated into Arabic: "Allah came from Mount Sinai," and some said in the translation: "Allah brightened up from Mount Sinai, and shone forth from Seir, and appeared from Mount Paran." [85] See: Book of Deuteronomy (33:2).
Many scholars said - and this is the wording of Abu Muhammad ibn Qutaybah -: "This is not incomprehensible or mysterious for whoever reflects on it because the coming of Allah from Mount Sinai refers to His sending the Torah upon Moses on Mount Sinai. This belief of the People of the Book is consistent with our beliefs. Also, His shining forth from Seir must be referring to His sending the Gospel upon the Messiah, as the Messiah was from Seir - the land of Hebron in a village called Nāsirah after which his followers, the "Nasāra", were named.
Just as His shining forth from Seir was in reference to the Messiah, then His appearance from Mount Paran must be referring to His sending down the Qur’an upon Muhammad (ﷺ), and Mount Paran refers to the mountains of Makkah." [86] See: Al-Bad’ wa at-Tārīkh (5/33) and A‘lām an-Nubuwwah by Al-Māwardi (p.150).
He said: "There is no dispute between the Muslims and the People of the Book concerning the fact that Paran is Makkah. However, if they claim that it is a place other than Makkah - which is likely, given their distortion and their lying - we say: Is it not mentioned in the Torah that Abraham settled Hājar and Ishmael in Paran?!
We also say: Show us the place where Allah appeared from and is called Paran and the prophet upon whom a book was sent after the Messiah. Is it not true that "ista‘lana" and "‘alana" have the same meaning, which are: appeared and manifested?! Do you know of a religion that was prevalent as Islam, which became widespread all over the globe from its east to its west the way Islam did?"
Ibn Zhafar [87] said: "Seir: a mountain in the Levant from where the Messiah's prophethood emerged." [88] He is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah Abi Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Zhafar as-Siqilli al-Makki. He was born in 497 AH. He was a writer, an explorer, and a scholar of Tafsīr. Among the books he wrote: Khayr al-Bishar bi Khayr al-Bashar, Anbā’ Nujabā’ al-Abnā’, and others. He died in 565 AH. See: Al-A‘lām by Az-Zirikli (6/231-320). See: Khayr al-Bishar bi Khayr al-Bashar (p. 129).
I said: Beside Bethlehem - the village where the Messiah was born - there is a village called Seir to this day and has mountains called Seir. The Torah reads: " The progeny of Esau were among the inhabitants of Seir and Allah commanded Moses not to harm them."
So, the mention of the three mountains is true. Mount Hirā’ from where the first revelation descended upon the Prophet (ﷺ). It is surrounded by so many other mountains to the extent that it was said that there are twelve thousand mountains in Makkah. This place is still called Paran until the present day, and it is the place where the revelation of the Qur’an commenced.
The desert between Makkah and Mount Sinai is called the Paran Desert and no one can claim that after the Messiah any divine book was revealed, or any prophet was sent anywhere in that land. Thus, it became known that His appearing from Mount Paran must be referring to sending Muhammad (ﷺ).
Allah Almighty mentioned this in the Torah in chronological order; He mentioned the revealing of the Torah, then the Gospel, then the Qur’an, and these books represent the light and guidance of Allah. In the first, He said: "came" or "manifested", in the second, He said: "shone forth", and in the third, He said: "appeared". The coming of the Torah was like the break of dawn or clearer than that, while the descent of the Gospel was like the rising of the sun, adding light and guidance. As for the descent of the Qur’an, it is like the appearance of the sun in the sky. Hence, He said: "And appeared from Mount Paran." This is because the appearance of Muhammad (ﷺ) made the light of Allah and His guidance manifest all around the globe much more than they were manifested by the two preceding books. They became manifest just as the sunlight becomes manifest when it appears all around the globe. That is why Allah called it: a radiant lamp and called the sun: a blazing lamp.
The people's need for the radiant lamp is greater than their need for the blazing lamp, which they need sometimes, and as it was said: Sometimes, it might cause them harm. As for the radiant lamp, they need it all the time and everywhere day and night, in secret and in public. The Prophet ( ﷺ) said: "The earth was brought together for me with its east and west sides, and the dominion of my nation will reach those ends that have been brought together for me." [89] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2889).
Allah Almighty swore by these three places in the Qur’an as He says: {By the fig and the olive [of Jerusalem], and by Mount Sinai [of Egypt], and by this secure city [of Makkah], Surely, We have created man in the best form, then We will reduce him to the lowest of the low, except those who believe and do righteous deeds; they will have a never-ending reward. Then, what makes you deny Judgment Day? Is not Allah the Most Just of all judges?} [Surat at-Tīn: 1-8]
So, Allah Almighty swore by {the fig and the olive} referring to the Sacred Land where these grow and from where the Messiah emerged and where the Gospel was sent down upon him.
He also swore by {Mount Sinai}, which is the mountain where he spoke to Moses and called him from the right side of its valley from the sacred ground from the tree.
And He swore by {the secure city}, which is Makkah, the city where Abraham settled his son Ishmael along with his mother Hājar (Hagar). It is the city which Allah has made a safe sanctuary, while people around it are being snatched away. It is the city which Allah has made secure in terms of creation as well as command, in terms of predestination as well as legislation.
What Ibn Qutaybah and other Muslim scholars mentioned about Ishmael and how he grew up in the Desert of Paran is also mentioned in the Torah that reads: "So, Abraham rose early in the morning and took the boy and took bread and a water-skin and gave them to Hagar, putting them on her shoulders and then said to her: Go. Hagar went on her way and was lost in the Desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was out, she put the boy under a tree. She sat down opposite him, about a bowshot away, so as not to watch the boy die. She started crying loudly. God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called Hagar and said to her: 'What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and hold him fast with your hands, for I will make him into a great nation.' Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So, she gave the boy a drink and filled her skin with water. God was with the boy as he grew up and lived in the Desert of Paran." [90] See: Book of Genesis (21: 14-21).
This was Allah's report in the Torah - that Ishmael lived and grew up in the Desert of Paran after he had been on the verge of death out of thirst, but Allah provided him with water from a well. It was known through mass transmission and the consensus of nations that Ishmael grew up in Makkah and he, along with his father Abraham, built the House. Thus, it becomes known that Makkah is Paran and Allah Almighty says about Ishmael: "I will make him into a great nation, which will be very venerable." [91] See: Book of Genesis (17:20).
This emphasized veneration "very" entails its exaggeration. If we assume that the House he built does not have pilgrims and that his progeny includes no prophet - as claimed by many of the People of the Book - then, the exaggerated veneration "very" would mean that he will have a progeny, and the fact that a man having a progeny does not entail veneration unless such a progeny includes believers who obey Allah.
Also, His statement: "I will make him into a great nation", if such was a disbelieving nation, then it would not be described as great; rather, he would be the father of a disbelieving nation. So, it became known that this great nation was a nation of believers who made pilgrimage to the House, and from here it is known that making pilgrimage to the House is something that Allah likes and commands.
None among the People of the Book makes pilgrimage to the House except Muslims. Thus, it became known that they are the ones who did what Allah likes and what pleases Him and that they, along with their predecessors who used to make pilgrimage to the House, are a nation praised and honored by Allah, and that Allah honored Ishmael very much by placing faith and prophethood in his progeny just as He bestowed upon Noah and Abraham, as He says: {We sent Noah and Abraham, and gave prophethood and Scripture to their offspring.} [Surat al-Hadīd: 26] Allah Almighty says about Abraham: {And assigned prophethood and scripture to his offspring.} [Surat al-‘Ankabūt: 27] And He Almighty says about Noah: {And made his offspring the only survivors.} [Surat as-Sāffāt: 77] All the believers were in his progeny; thus, it was known that Ishmael and his progeny are venerable and praised in the sight of Allah and that Ishmael is very venerated as Allah venerated Noah and Abraham, although Abraham is better than Ishmael. However, what is meant here is that: Such veneration for him and for his progeny is only in case his progeny is venerated for adopting the religion of truth, besides the fact that they make pilgrimage to the House, and none makes pilgrimage to the House after the mission of Muhammad except them.
This is why when Allah Almighty says: {Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah upon all people.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 97] They said: We shall not make pilgrimage. Thus, Allah said: {Whoever disbelieves, then Allah is in no need for the worlds.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 97] [92] See: Al-Umm by Ash-Shāfi‘i (2/119) and Sunan Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr (3/1063) no. (506).
In addition, such an exaggerated veneration that has made the progeny of Ishmael above all people was not manifested except through the prophethood of Muhammad, which indicates the fact that his prophethood is a prophesied truth.
[Prophecy [2]]
David said in the Psalms: "Praise the Lord with a new praise and let the one for whom God has chosen his nation rejoice, the one whom He has given victory and has bestowed honor upon the righteous from among them. They praise Him on their beds and proclaim His greatness in loud voices. With their hands, they hold swords of two blades so He would wreak vengeance on the nations that do not worship Him." [93] See: Psalms (149: 1-7) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/ 659).
Such a description is only applicable to Muhammad (ﷺ) and his nation as they are the ones who make Takbīr (proclaim Allah's greatness) loudly in their Adhān (call to prayer) for the five prayers and on the high places, as Jābir ibn ‘Abdullah said: "We were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and whenever we ascended a high place, we used to make Takbīr (say: Allāhu Akbar) and whenever we descended to a low place, we used to make Tasbīh (say: Subhānallāh), and the prayer was accordingly prescribed." [Narrated by Al-Bukhāri] [94] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2993).
Abu Hurayrah reported: "A man said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I want to set out on a journey, so advise me.' He said: 'Fear Allah and make Takbīr (say: Allah is the Greatest) upon every elevated place.' When the man turned away, he (the Prophet) said: 'O Allah, make the long distance short for him and make the journey easy for him.'" [Narrated by Imam Ahmad, at-Tirmidhi, and an-Nasā’i, and it was judged as Hasan (sound) by at-Tirmidhi] [95] Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (8310), at-Tirmidi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3445), and an-Nasā’i in his "As-Sunan al-Kubra Collection" no. (10266).
They proclaim Allah's greatness by making Takbīr loudly in their Eids: Eid al-Fitr and Eid an-Nahr (al-Ad'ha) during the prayer and the sermon and while heading to the place of prayer. They also make Takbīr loudly during the days of Mina, as the pilgrims and the Muslims in all other countries make Takbīr after the prayers since it is Sunnah for the Imam who leads people in prayer to make Takbīr audibly.
The Christians call the Muslims' Eid, the Eid of "Allāhu Akbar", owing to the prevalence of Takbīr during it, which is not a characteristic of any of the nations, neither the People of the Book nor others, except the Muslims. Moses used to gather the Children of Israel by blowing the horn, while the bell is the Christians' slogan. As for proclaiming Allah's greatness through making Takbīr in loud voices, it is the Muslims' slogan as the Adhān is the Muslims' slogan.
His statement: "With their hands, they hold swords of two blades" refers to the Arabian swords with which the Companions and their followers conquered the countries.
His statement: "They praise Him on their beds" is a description of the believers who remember Allah while standing, sitting, and lying on their sides, and who perform the obligatory prayers while standing, and if unable, then sitting, and if unable, then lying on one's side.
Thus, they do not abandon remembering Allah in any state; rather, they remember Him even in such a state as they pray at home on their beds. In fact, prayer is considered the greatest form of Tasbīh (glorification of Allah), as Allah Almighty says: {So, glory be to Allah in the evening and in the morning, and all praise is due to Him in the heavens and earth – and [glorify Him] in the afternoon and at noon.} [Surat ar-Rūm: 17-18] Allah Almighty also says: {And glorify your Lord with praise before sunrise and before sunset.} [Surat Taha: 130]
In the two "Sahīh Collections", it was reported that Jarīr ibn ‘Abdullah said: "We were sitting with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) when he looked at the moon when it was full and said: 'Verily, you will see your Lord as you see this moon, you will not have any difficulty in seeing Him. So, if you are able not to be overcome in observing a prayer before sunrise (the Fajr) and a prayer before sunset (the ‘Asr), then do so.' Then, he recited: {And glorify your Lord with praise before sunrise and before sunset and glorify Him during the night and at both ends of the day, so that you may be pleased [with the reward].}" [96] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (554) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (633).
This is the meaning of the statement of Dāwud (David): "Praise the Lord with a new praise" i.e., the new forms of glorification that Allah legislated like the five prayers that He newly legislated for the Muslims, and when Jibrīl (Gabriel) set them for the Prophet (ﷺ), he said: "This is your timing and the timing of the prophets before you." [97] So, the prophets used to glorify Allah at such times, which is the previous form of glorification, but the new form of glorification belongs to the Muslims as indicated by the rest of the statement. Narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (325) and Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6223).
This could not be referring to the Christians because they do not proclaim Allah's greatness in loud voices, and they do not hold swords of two blades with their hands, so that Allah would wreak revenge through them on other nations. Rather, their reports indicate that they were overpowered by the nations, and they did not fight against them with swords. In fact, the Christians may even criticize whoever fights against the disbelievers with the sword. Some of them count this among the defects of Muhammad (ﷺ) and his nation. They overlook what they have about Allah Almighty commanding Moses to fight against the disbelievers. This includes how the Children of Israel fought against them under his command, and how Joshua, David, and other prophets also fought against them, while Abraham, the close friend of Allah, fought to ward off oppression from his followers.
[Prophecy [3]]
David said: "Our Lord is Great and highly Praiseworthy." A translation reads: "Our Lord is Holy, and Muhammad has filled the whole earth with happiness." [98] See: Psalms (99: 3) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/661).
They said [99]: "David stated the name of Muhammad and his city, which he called "the village of Allah," and he said that his word will reach the whole earth." [100] What is meant by "they said" here and what will be mentioned later in the commentary on the prophecies is what Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) quotes from the Book "Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl", which was written by Al-Qādi Abu al-Baqā’ al-Ja‘fari al-Hāshimi (d. 668 AH). Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/661).
[Prophecy [4]]
In Isaiah's prophethood: "It was said to me: Be a watchman, what do you see? I said: I see two riders coming: one on a donkey and the other on a camel, and one of them says to the other: Babylon and its people have totally collapsed." [101] See: The Book of Isaiah (21: 6-9) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/665).
They said: "The one riding the donkey is the Messiah (peace be upon him), while the one riding the camel is Muhammad (ﷺ), who was famous for riding the camel more than the Messiah was famous for riding the donkey. And by Muhammad (ﷺ), the idols of Babylon fell down." [102] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/666).
[Prophecy [5]]
Prophet Isaiah (peace be upon him) declared the name of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying: "I have made your matter praiseworthy, O Muhammad, O you who are purified by the Lord, your name has existed forever." [103] See: Book of Isaiah (63: 15-16) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/673).
They said: "So, is there any argument left for the deviant or any chance for the slanderer after this? Isaiah's statement: that [the name of Muhammad has existed forever] is in line with the statement of David (peace be upon him): that [his name existed before the sun]. His statement: "O the pure of the Lord" means: O you who were purified by the Lord and saved from his humanity and whom the Lord chose for Himself." [104] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/673).
[Prophecy [6]]
Prophet Isaiah mentioned the seal of prophethood saying: "A child was born to Us. He will be a wonder and a human, with the mole on his shoulder; the ’Urkūn (leader) of peace; a mighty god. His power is the power of peace. He is the son of his world and shall sit on the chair of David." [105] See: Book of Isaiah (9: 1-7) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/675).
They said: " 'Urkūn' means: the great in the Gospel's language, and 'arākinah' means: the revered. When the Messiah cured a lunatic of his lunacy, the Jews said: 'This one does not bring the devils out of the humans except by means of the greatest one of the devils', meaning: their revered one." [106] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/675).
Thus, Isaiah testified to the truthfulness of Muhammad's (ﷺ) prophethood and described him with his most unique and clearest sign, namely his mole [107]. Indeed, the mole was neither for Solomon nor for the Messiah. He also described him by sitting on David's chair, i.e., he would inherit the Children of Israel: their prophethood, their sovereignty and would seize their leadership. i.e., the seal of prophethood, which was on his left shoulder, a mole like a pigeon's egg, having few assembled hairs. See: "Sahīh Muslim Collection" no. (2344), (2346) and Ash-Shamā’il Al-Muhammadiyyah (p. 44).
[Prophecy [7]]
Isaiah described the nation of Muhammad (ﷺ) saying: "The desert and the cities will be filled with the children of Kedar, praising (the Lord) and shouting from the tops of mountains; they are the ones who give glory unto the Lord and declare His praise on the land and in the sea." [108] See: Book of Isaiah (42: 11-12) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/676).
I said: Kedar is the son of Ishmael by the people's consensus, and Rabī‘ah and Mudar are from his children, and Muhammad (ﷺ) is from Mudar. Such ampleness and praise on the land and in the sea did not occur to them except after the mission of Muhammad (ﷺ), since the earth has been made a place of worship for them and as a means of purification, for they perform the five (obligatory) prayers on the land and in the sea.
[Prophecy [8]]
Isaiah, recounting from Allah Almighty, said: "Thank my beloved one and my son Ahmad." [109] I could not find this text in the Book of Isaiah, see: Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/678).
"Allah called him 'beloved' and 'son', and David also was called 'son'; however, Allah granted him a unique privilege, as He said: 'My beloved son, thank him'; thus, making the act of thanking Muhammad an act of worship that Isaiah should perform, and he made it his duty and the duty of his people to thank and revere him so as to clarify his high status and rank with Him, which is a rank that was not bestowed upon any of the messengers other than him." [110] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/678).
[Prophecy [9]]
Isaiah said: "Verily, from the ends of the earth we heard the voice of Muhammad." [111] See: Book of Isaiah (24: 16) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/679).
"This is a declaration made by Isaiah about the name of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Let the People of the Book show us a prophet whose name was clearly declared by the prophets other than the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." [112] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/679).
[Prophecy [10]]
Habakkuk - who called Muhammad (ﷺ) the Messenger of Allah by his name twice during his prophethood - said: "God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. The heaven was lightened by the beauty of Muhammad and the earth was filled with his praise. The ray of his splendor is like light. He encompasses his country with his might. Death walks before him and the birds of prey accompany his soldiers. He stood and swept the earth and the ancient mountains crumbled for him, the hills became low, the shields of the people of Midian shook and he fulfilled the old quests."
Then, he said: "Your wrath against the rivers, your rage against the sea, you rode horses and boarded the rescue ships. Your bows will cause drowning and death, and the arrows will, verily, quench its thirst by your command, O Muhammad. The mountains saw you and became terrified, torrents of water swept by you, the depths roared noisily and out of terror, raising their hands out of fear and dread. The soldiers marched in the glitter of your arrows and the sparkle of your short spears. In wrath you stride through the earth and in anger you threshed the nations because you came out to deliver your nation and save the heritage of your forefathers." [113] See: Book of Habakkuk (3: 3-15) with a similar wording, and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/689-690).
They said: "This is a clear declaration about Muhammad and whoever seeks to divert Habakkuk's prophecy from Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), is seeking the concealment of daylight and the confinement of rivers, and how could he do this if he called him by his name twice, informed of the power of his nation and how death walks before them and the birds of prey follow their traces?! Such prophethood befits none but Muhammad, and suits none but him, and points to none except him. So, whoever tries to divert it from him is trying to do the impossible." [114] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/690).
I said: It was mentioned there that the light of Allah would emerge from Teman - which is somewhere in the direction of Makkah and Hijāz - and the prophets of the Children of Israel used to emerge from the direction of the Levant, whereas Muhammad (ﷺ) came from the direction of Yemen, and the mountains of Paran are the mountains of Makkah, as previously clarified, and this is indisputable.
As for the heaven being filled with the beauty of Ahmad, it refers to the lights of faith and the Qur’an that emerged from him and from his nation, and the fact that the earth is filled with his praise and his nation's praise during their prayer is something obvious, as his followers are those who excessively praise, since they must praise Allah in every prayer and in every sermon, and it is necessary for everyone praying to praise in every single Rak‘ah (prayer unit): {All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, Master of the Day of Judgment.} [Surat al-Fātihah: 2-4] When one says: {All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds}, Allah says: My slave has praised Me. When one says: {The Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful}, Allah says: My slave has commended Me. When one says: {Master of the Day of Judgment}, Allah says: My slave has extolled Me. [115] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (395).
This way, they begin their standing in prayer by praising Allah, and conclude it by praising Allah, and when they lift their heads from Rukū‘ (bowing), their Imam says: "Sami‘allāhu liman hamidah (Allah hears whoever praises Him)" and they all say: "Rabbana wa lakal-hamd (O our Lord, all praise is due to You)." They also end their prayer by praising Him by dedicating greetings and good prayers to Him. Their praise and commendation of Allah is something that needs a long time to explain.
[Prophecy [11]]
He said: Daniel (peace be upon him), mentioning Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) by his name, said: "Your bows will cause drowning and the arrows will, verily, quench their thirst by your command, O Muhammad." [116] I could not find this text in the Book of Daniel, see: Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/696).
"This is a clear declaration and not an alluding, correct words not defective, and if anyone disputes this, then let him find us the other one whose name is Muhammad and who has arrows to be pulled and whose command must be obeyed and not rejected." [117] Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/696).
[Prophecies of the Gospel]
[Prophecy [1]]
John the Apostle said: Jesus Christ said in chapter fifteen of his Gospel: "The Fāriqlīt (comforter), the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send will teach you everything." [118] See: Book of John (14: 26), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/701).
[Prophecy [2]]
John the disciple also said - reporting from the Messiah - that he said to his disciples: "If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will ask the Father to give you another Fāriqlīt (comforter) to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot kill him because it does not know him. I will not leave you as orphans, for I will come to you soon." [119] See: Book of John (14: 15-19), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/704).
[Prophecy [3]]
John also said: "Jesus said: If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him and will come to him and choose His home near him. I have told you these things because I am present with you. But the Fāriqlīt (comforter), the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. My peace I leave with you. Let not your hearts be troubled or be afraid as I am going away and coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice because I am going to the Father. If you adhere to my words and if my words adhere to you, you shall have everything you desire, and this is how my Father is glorified." [120] See: Book of John (14: 23-31), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/705-706).
[Prophecy [4]]
John also said: "When the Fāriqlīt (comforter) whom my Father will send, the Spirit of truth from my Father, comes, he will testify for me. I said this to you so you would believe in him and have no doubts about him." [121] See: Book of John (15: 26-27), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/708).
[Prophecy [5]]
John also said: "It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Fāriqlīt (comforter) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will rebuke the world for sin. I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you to all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come, and he will make known to you all that belongs to the Father." [122] See: Book of John (16: 7-16), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/711).
[Prophecy [6]]
John the disciple said: "Jesus said: The ’Urkūn (leader) of the world is coming and I have no authority concerning it." [123] See: Book of John (14: 29-30), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/714). The meaning of "urkūn" has been previously mentioned in the sixth prophecy of the Torah, see: (p. 586-587).
[Prophecy [7]]
Matthew the disciple said: "Jesus said: Have you not read in the Scriptures that the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to another nation who will eat its fruit. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." [124] See: Book of Matthew (21: 34-46), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/715).
[Prophecy [8]]
John, the disciple, said in the Book: The Disciples' Epistles, known as "Fraksis": "O my beloved ones, beware of believing in every spirit; rather, differentiate between the spirits coming from God from other spirits. Let it be known to you that every spirit that believes that Jesus Christ came and was corporeal is a spirit from Allah, while every spirit that does not believe that Jesus Christ came and was corporeal is not a spirit from Allah; rather, it is from the Antichrist whom you heard of, and he is now in the world." [125] See: First Epistle of John (4: 1-3), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/717).
[Prophecy [9]]
Simeon of Cephas (Peter), leader of the disciples, said in the "Fraksis" Book: "It is time for judgment to begin at the House of God." [126] See: First Epistle of Peter (4: 17), and Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/717).
I said: They held different opinions regarding the meaning of this word - Fāriqlīt - in their language:
It was said: it means the "hammād" (one who excessively praises).
And it was said: it means the "hāmid" (one who praises).
And it was said: it means the "mu‘izz" (one who grants power).
It was also said: it means "hamd" (praise), and this opinion was given preponderance by one group. They said: It is supported by evidence according to their language since the meaning of "hamd" is (praise), and the proof of this is what Joshua said: "Whoever does a good deed, it will be a good Fāriqlīt for him", i.e., a cause of good praise. There is also this famous statement in their speech: a Fāriqlīt, two Fāriqlīts, and whatever is more is for all, i.e., praise and favor, just as we say: kindness and favor.
Most Christians are of the opinion that it means: the savior, and it was said: he is the wise.
They call the Messiah himself "the Savior". According to the Gospel that they have, he said: "I did not come to adorn the world, but to save the world." [127] The Christians say in their prayers: "O mother of the god, you gave birth [128] to a savior." See: Gospel of John (12: 47). Correction of the text from: Takhjīl Man Harrafa At-Tawrāh Wa Al-Injīl (2/702).
Those who said it means: the savior, argue that it is a Syriac word that means: the savior. They said: It is derived from their word "rāwiq" and in the Syriac language it is "Fārūq", so it became "Fāriq". They said: "Leet" is a word that is added to strengthen the meaning and as a form of appreciation, as it is said in Arabic: A man he is, a rock it is, a full moon it is, a male he is. So, "leet" is added for the same purpose in the Syriac language.
Those who said that it means: "mu‘izz" (one who grants power) argue that in the Greek language it means: the one who grants power.
These two opinions are criticised for the fact that the Messiah's language was neither Syriac nor Greek; rather, it was Hebrew.
In reply it was said: He spoke Hebrew, and it was translated to other languages as one of the Gospels was dictated in Greek, another in Syriac, another in Roman, and one of them remained in Hebrew.
Different opinions were held in this regard [129]: Some Christians said: It was a spirit that descended upon the disciples. They might also say: They were flames that descended from heaven onto the disciples and worked wonders and miracles. Hence, those who know the Christians well say that none of them has been seen to be able to correctly interpret the coming of this promised Fāriqlīt. i.e., regarding the Fāriqlīt.
Some of them claim that it is the Messiah himself, given the fact that he came after forty days of his crucifixion and rose from his grave.
Interpreting this word as the spirit is false, and interpreting it as the Messiah is even more false for several reasons, which are:
- The Holy Spirit has been descending upon the prophets and the righteous before the Messiah and after him, and he is not described with such traits, as Allah Almighty says: {You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day taking as allies those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their parents, their children, their brothers, or their kindred. It is they in whose hearts Allah has instilled faith and strengthened them with a spirit from Him.} [Surat al-Mujādalah: 22] The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Hassān ibn Thābit - when he was satirizing the polytheists-: "O Allah, strengthen him with the Holy Spirit." [130] He (ﷺ) also said: "The Holy Spirit is with you as long as you are defending His Prophet." [131] If this is the case and nobody has ever called this Spirit Fāriqlīt, then the Fāriqlīt is something else. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3212) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2485). Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (7146).
Also, the prophets and the righteous are still being supported with the like of this, and the prophecies brought by the Messiah represent a great matter, which was followed by something even greater.
In addition to this, he described the Fāriqlīt by attributes that do not befit this; rather, it befits a man like him who would come after him, as he said: "If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will ask the Father to give you another Fāriqlīt (comforter) to be with you forever." [132] See: Gospel of John (14: 15-16).
His words: "Another Fāriqlīt" indicates that he comes second to the first one who preceded him, and no one was with them during the Messiah's lifetime except him, and no spirit descended upon them. Thus, it became known that the one who would come after him would be equal to him and not something that would usually come to people.
He also said: "To be with you forever," this could only be in reference to what would last and remain with them until the end of time, and it is known that he did not mean that the person himself would last forever, thus it became known that he was referring to the permanence of his legislation and command. Since the legislation and religion of the first Fāriqlīt did not last with them forever, therefore, it became clear that this second one would bring a legislation that would not be abrogated, unlike the first one, and this is only applicable to Muhammad (ﷺ).
The Messiah also said that this Fāriqlīt would testify for him, teach them everything, remind them of what the Messiah had said, and rebuke the world for the sin, as he said: "The Fāriqlīt (comforter) whom my Father will send will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." [133] See: Gospel of John (14: 26).
And he said: "When the Fāriqlīt (comforter), whom my Father will send comes, he will testify for me. I said this to you so you would believe in him and have no doubts about him." [134] See: Gospel of John (15: 26).
He also said: "It is for your good that I go away. Unless I go away, the Fāriqlīt (comforter) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will rebuke the world for sin. I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you to all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come, and he will make known to you all that belongs to the Father." [135] See: Gospel of John (16: 5-16).
Such traits and qualities - which they received from the Messiah - are not applicable to whatever exists in the hearts of some people and is not seen or heard by anyone; rather, it is applicable to the one whom the people can see and can hear his words, and who will testify for the Messiah, teach them everything, remind them of everything the Messiah said to them, and who will rebuke the world for the sin, guide people to all the truth, and who will not speak of his own mind; rather, he will speak only what he hears and will inform them of what is yet to come and inform them of everything that belongs to the Lord of the worlds.
This could not be an angel whom none can see, or guidance or knowledge in the hearts of some people; rather, this could only be a greatly respectable man who addresses people with what the Messiah reported. He could only be a human messenger; rather, he must be greater than the Messiah himself, as the Messiah clarified that he would do what the Messiah himself could not do in terms of addressing people and informing them of great matters that the minds of those could not bear, and that he would know what the Messiah did not know, and that he would inform them of what is yet to come and of what the Lord is worthy of, as he said: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you to all the truth. He will not speak of his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come, and he will make known to you all that belongs to the Father."
Such traits are only applicable to Muhammad (ﷺ). This is because providing information about Allah and His attributes, His angels, His dominion, and about what He has prepared for His allies in Paradise, and what He has prepared for His enemies in Hellfire are things that many people cannot bear to comprehend in detail.
Thus, the Messiah (peace be upon him) said to them: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear." He is truthful and trusted about this, and for this reason the Gospel does not include information about Allah's attributes, the attributes of His dominion, and the attributes of the Last Day, except general information. The same applies to the Torah, as nothing is mentioned therein about the Last Day except general information, and even though Moses paved the way for the Messiah, the Messiah said to them: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can bear now." Then, he said: "But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you to all the truth." And he added: "and he will tell you what is yet to come, and he will make known to you all that belongs to the Father."
It was an indication that this Fāriqlīt would be the one to do this apart from the Messiah, and this was actually what Muhammad (ﷺ) did, as he guided people to all the truth and Allah perfected the religion for him and completed His favor by him; hence, he was the last of the prophets as nothing else remained to be conveyed by others.
Muhammad (ﷺ) informed of what is yet to come of the signs of the Hour, the Day of Judgment, the Sirāt (bridge over Hell), the weighing of deeds, Paradise and its types of bliss, and Hellfire and its types of torment. Thus, the Qur’an contains details about the Hereafter, Paradise, Hellfire, and many other relevant matters that are not found neither in the Torah nor in the Gospel, and this is a confirmation of the Messiah's statement: "He will tell you what is yet to come."
Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent by Allah ahead of the Hour, as he said: "My mission and the Hour are like these two," [136] pointing with his index and middle fingers. Whenever he (ﷺ) mentioned the Hour, he would raise his voice, his face would turn red, and he would express severe anger as if he were warning of an army, and he would say: "I am the open warner." [137] And he (ﷺ) said: "I am a warner to you ahead of a severe punishment." [138] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6505) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (867). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6482) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2283). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4770) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (208).
So, he (ﷺ) prophesied events that would occur in the future that were not prophesied by any other prophet, and he was as the Messiah described him when he said: "He will tell you what is yet to come." Nothing like this has ever been reported from any of the prophets before Muhammad (ﷺ), let alone its being revealed to the hearts of some of the disciples.
Also, the Messiah said: "And he will make known to you all that belongs to the Father." Here he clarified the fact that he would enlighten people about everything that belongs to Allah, including Allah's names and attributes, His rights, the obligation of believing in Him, in His angels, books, and messengers in a way that what he brings would be encompassing everything the Lord is worthy of.
None brought such a thing except Muhammad (ﷺ), as the Book and the Sunnah he brought included all this, and it is known that the revelation given to the disciples did not include all this or even half or third of it; rather, what the Messiah brought was greater than what was brought by the disciples, and this second Fāriqlīt brought what is even greater than what was brought by the Messiah.
Also, the Messiah said: "When the Fāriqlīt (comforter) whom my Father will send comes, he will testify for me. I said this to you so you would believe in him and have no doubt about him." He made it clear that he informed them of him so that they would believe in him and have no doubt about him. He also said that he would testify for him, and this is the description of the one whom the Messiah prophesied and who testified for the Messiah, as Allah Almighty says: {And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O Children of Israel, I am truly a messenger of Allah to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving glad tidings of a messenger after me whose name will be Ahmad.”} [Surat as-Saff: 6]
The Messiah also said that he would rebuke the world about sin, and none rebuked the entire world about sin except Muhammad (ﷺ), who warned all the worlds and all types of people and rebuked them about sins, including disbelief, transgression, and disobedience. He rebuked the polytheists from among the Arabs, the Indians, the Turks, and others. He rebuked the Magi at the time when their kingdom was the greatest of kingdoms. He rebuked the People of the Book from among the Jews and the Christians. In an authentic Hadīth, he said: "Verily, Allah looked at the people of the earth, so hated them, both the Arabs and non-Arabs among them, with the exception of some remnants from the People of the Book." [139] He did not just impose commands and prohibitions; rather, he rebuked, scolded, and threatened them. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2865).
The Messiah said that he (ﷺ) would not speak of his own; rather, he would speak only what he hears. This stresses the fact that whatever he says is nothing but the revelation he hears; it is not something he learnt from people or something he realized by means of his own deduction. This is clearly a unique characteristic of Muhammad (ﷺ). The Messiah and the prophets before him used to learn from others besides what was revealed to them. Thus, they possessed knowledge other than the revelation they heard. However, Muhammad (ﷺ) did not utter anything except the revelation he heard, as he was the conveyor of what he was sent with, and he was told the following: {O Messenger, convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not do that, then you have not conveyed His message.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 67]
Allah guaranteed protection for him if he conveyed His messages. Hence, he guided people to all truth and informed them of things that no other prophet was able to for fear of being killed, as they mention about the Messiah and others.
The Messiah stated that he did not inform them of everything he knew and that they could not bear it. They even admit that he used to be afraid of them in case of telling them about the realities. On the other hand, Allah Almighty provided Muhammad (ﷺ) with the kind of support that He did not provide to anyone else. He protected him from people and thus he was not afraid of saying anything. He also granted him the skill of expression and knowledge that He did not grant anyone else. So, the Book he was sent with contained clarification of the facts of the unseen that no other book had.
Allah also supported his nation in such a way that made them capable of bearing what he conveyed to them. Thus, they were not like the people of the Torah who were given the Torah but failed to uphold it, nor were they like the people of the Gospel to whom the Messiah said: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can bear now." It was narrated that the Messiah said: "I brought you the examples and he will bring you the interpretation."
There is no doubt that the followers of Muhammad possess better minds and greater faith and are more perfect in terms of belief and Jihad. Hence, their sciences, their heart-related acts, and their faith are considered greater, whereas the physical acts of worship of others are considered greater.
Allah Almighty says: {The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, as do the believers. All of them believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers, [saying], “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” And they say, “We hear and obey. Grant us Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.” Allah does not burden any soul greater than it can bear. For it is what it has earned, and against it is what it has incurred. “Our Lord do not hold us accountable if we forget or fall into error. Our Lord do not place on us such a burden as You have placed on those before us. Our Lord do not burden us with that which we cannot bear. Pardon us, forgive us, and have mercy on us. You are our Protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people.”} [Surat al-Baqarah: 285-286]
In the "Sahīh Collection", it was proven from the Prophet (ﷺ) that Allah Almighty said in response to this: "I did." [140] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (126).
The Messiah also stated that the Fāriqlīt would testify for him and would teach them everything and remind them of everything the Messiah had said to them. It is known that this could not be fulfilled unless he testified for him a testimony that people could hear, not something that lies in the hearts of few people. None has testified for the Messiah a testimony heard by most people except Muhammad (ﷺ). He clarified the truth about the Messiah and testified for him with the truth until most people on earth heard his testimony and learnt that he believed the Messiah and deemed him far above the Jews' slander and far above the Christians' extremism. Thus, he was the one who testified for him with the truth.
Therefore, when Negus heard from the Companions the testimony of Muhammad (ﷺ) for the Messiah, he said to them: "Jesus did not exceed what you have said by the length of this stick." [141] Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (1764).
Allah Almighty has made the nation of Muhammad witnesses over mankind, testifying according to what they know of the truth as they are moderate and upright and do not give false testimonies. The witness must be upright unlike the one who commits injustice in his testimony by adding to the truth or skipping part of it, like the testimony of the Jews and the Christians about the Messiah.
Also, if the meaning of Fāriqlīt is the "hāmid" (one who praises), or the "hammād" (one who excessively praises), or the "hamd" (praise), or the "mu‘izz" (one who grants power), then such attributes are obvious in Muhammad (ﷺ). This is because he (ﷺ) along with his nation are the "hammādūn" who praise Allah in all conditions, and he (ﷺ) is the owner of the banner of Hamd (praise), and praise represents the opening of their sermons and prayers. And since he was "hammād" (one who excessively praises Allah), he was rewarded with his own attribute because every deed has a recompense that suits it. Thus, his name was Muhammad and Ahmad.
As for "Muhammad", it has the same form as "mukarram", "mu‘azhzham", and "muqaddas", and it means the one who is praised a lot and in an excessive manner. He is worthy of this since he was "hammād" of Allah (one who excessively praises Allah), he became "muhammad" (one who is praised a lot). Part of Hassān's poetry reads:
"He derived his name from His name as a form of reverence, as the Owner of the Throne is Mahmūd (Praiseworthy) and this one is Muhammad (the praised one)."
As for "Ahmad", it indicates preference, i.e., he is more "ahmad" than others, which means that he is worthier of being praised than others. Thus, it denotes favoring him over others in terms of praise.
So, the word "muhammad" implies his merit in terms of the quantity of praise, while the word "ahmad" implies his merit in terms of the quality of praise.
Some people say: Ahmad, i.e., one who praises more than others. In this sense, it means "hāmid" (one who praises) and "hammād" (one who excessively praises).
Those who are of the opinion that "Fāriqlīt" in their language means "hamd" (praise) - as previously mentioned - said: If this is the case, then it is the same as what is mentioned in the Qur’an: {and giving glad tidings of a messenger after me whose name will be Ahmad.} [Surat as-Saff: 6]
They said: They have no doubts concerning the fact that this name is derived from "hamd" (praise), as we say in our language: "dārib" (one who beats) and "madrūb" (one who is beaten).
As for the name "Mu‘izz" (one who grants power), no prophet has ever been known to grant power to the people of Tawhīd (monotheism) and faith more than Muhammad (ﷺ) did. Hence, he deserves the name "Mu‘izz" more than any other human being.
As for the meaning of "the savior", it is also obvious in him as the Messiah is the first Savior, as mentioned in the Gospel. It is known among the Christians that the Messiah (peace be upon him) was called "Savior". This way, the Messiah will be the first Fāriqlīt, and he prophesied another Fāriqlīt as he said: "And I will ask the Father to give you another Fāriqlīt (comforter) to be with you forever." So, this is a prophecy about a second savior who will remain with them forever, and the Messiah was the first savior.
As for what descends upon the hearts, none has ever called it "Savior" or "Fāriqlīt". Thus, it is not allowed to interpret the Messiah's words except in his own language and according to his own meanings, which are known in his language with which he addressed people, and this applies to all the prophets; rather, this is for all those who speak.
This second Savior was described to be staying with them forever, and Muhammad is, indeed, the Savior who brought a legislation that would remain forever without ever being abrogated.
[Second: Giving Information about the Unseen]
The Qur’an has presented diverse types of signs and proofs indicating the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ) including: Informing his people about the past unseen, which no human can know unless he is a prophet or someone who received it from a prophet. His people knew that he did not learn this from a human, neither from the People of the Book nor from others. This past unseen is of two types, which are:
First: What the polytheists or the People of the Book used to ask him about to verify whether he was a prophet or not. His people used to send to the People of the Book, who lived far away from them like those who were in Madīnah and others, seeking what they could ask him about. The latter would send them things to ask him about, to verify by his claim of prophethood.
Second: What Allah Almighty initially informed him of to be a sign and a token of his prophethood and a proof of his message, besides other considerations in mentioning such stories.
Each of these two types represented evidence and a sign of his prophethood from two aspects, which are:
The First Aspect: Giving information about the unseen, which is known only to a prophet.
The Second Aspect: Information that contains conditions of the believers and the disbelievers, which implies pursuing the course of the believers who followed their likes and avoiding the course of the disbelievers who opposed their likes, bearing in mind that the ruling on something is the same ruling on its equal. So, if those who liked him and those who followed him are happy, and those who opposed the like of him and those who followed him are miserable, then this is an indication and a sign that entails following him and of the prohibition of opposing him. It is also a proof of the prophethood of the prophets preceding him from two aspects, which are:
The First Aspect: They prophesied him many years prior to his mission, and it happened just as they prophesied. This is a sign of their prophethood and their prophecy about his prophethood is proof of his prophethood. So, the information about him in the previous books has become evidence of the prophethood of those before him and of his own prophethood. Furthermore, his providing information about them, which he did not learn from any human being and despite the long gap between them, is evidence on his prophethood, and he reported their prophethood, thus proving thereby his prophethood and their prophethood all together.
The Second Aspect: The information he gave was the same information they had given without any mutual agreement between them; they did not take from him, nor did he take from them and each of them gave detailed information about Allah that they could not agree on unanimously unless through mutual contrivance. Thus, so long as there is no mutual agreement and arrangement, and it is impossible for the reports to be consistent without mutual agreement, therefore, each of the reporters of such information is truthful.
Allah Almighty says: {In the story of Joseph and his brothers there are lessons for those who seek [them].} [Surat Yūsuf: 7] Then, He related his story in the Surah. Allah Almighty also says: {They ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, “I will tell you something about him.”} [Surat al-Kahf: 83] And He Almighty says: {They ask you [O Prophet] about the soul. Say, “The soul is only known to my Lord, and you have not been given knowledge except a little.”} [Surat al-Isrā’: 85]
After relating the story of Noah in Surat Hūd - which is the lengthiest of what was related in the Qur’an about the story of Noah - Allah Almighty says: {This is one of the stories of the unseen that we reveal to you [O Prophet]; neither you nor your people knew it before this. So be patient; the outcome is for the righteous.} [Surat Hūd: 49] Here Allah Almighty mentioned that what He revealed to him about {the stories of the unseen} was neither known to him nor to his people before this. So, if his people did not know about it from the People of the Book or from others, and he did not live with other than his people, and his people knew this about him and knew that they had no knowledge about this and knew also that he had no knowledge about this and that he lived with none but them and they did not know about this, therefore, this becomes an argument against his people and against whoever heard about his people.
An example of this is what he told them about the story of Adam and the angels' prostration before him and how Satan tempted him into eating from the tree, and how he and his wife went down.
He also informed them about Noah, his supplication for his people, and his stay among them for a thousand years less fifty, which is mentioned in the Torah that is currently in the hands of the People of the Book; the duration of his stay among his people before and after the drowning. [142] See: Book of Genesis (9: 28-29).
He also told them about the story of Abraham, the intimate friend of Allah, and what happened between him and his people and throwing him into the fire, slaughtering his son, coming of angels to him in the form of two guests, and giving him glad tidings about Isaac and Jacob. He also told them about the angels going to Lot and what happened between Lot and his people and Allah destroying the cities of the people of Lot.
He also mentioned the story of the People of the Cave and the story of Dhul-Qarnayn, in addition to other stories about the prophets, the righteous, and the disbelievers that he related in detail and expressed in the best manner and the most perfect knowledge. His people, who knew him since he was young and until he claimed prophethood, were well aware of the fact that he did not learn this from a human. He did not even meet with a human being who knew about this and none in Makkah knew about this, neither a Jew nor a Christian nor others.
This was among the greatest signs and proof for his people that no one taught him and informed him of this except Allah, and this kind of unseen is only known to a prophet or to someone taught by a prophet. So, if he did not learn it from a prophet, then, he himself must be a prophet.
Furthermore, all the people on earth know that he did not learn this from a human for several reasons, which are:
First: His people, who opposed him and who were the keenest on finding fault with his prophethood despite their perfect knowledge, continuously admitted his truthfulness (ﷺ) and the fact that they never witnessed him lying, besides admitting that what he was saying was neither poetry nor divination and that he was not a magician. Had they known that he learnt this from a human, they would have libeled and exposed him. Because they knew everything about him, it would be impossible for them not to know about this, i.e., his learning this from a human, if it had happened, and considering their keenness on defaming him, it would be impossible not to do so and not to expose it. However, since that did not happen, it indicates that they did not know this and could not use it as a means to defame him despite their knowledge about him and their desire to defame him. When there is a cause and an ability, they must lead to some act. So long as they had a perfect reason but still, they did not defame him, it became known that this was due to their inability, and their inability to defame him despite knowing him is an indication that they knew he did not learn it from a human.
Second: It was mass transmitted from his people that they used to say that he did not meet with someone who could teach him that.
Third: Had he learnt about such different stories from the People of the Book, despite his enmity with them, they would have stated and declared this. Had they declared this, it would have been reported and known, as this is among the incidents that would normally be reported with great zeal and motivation.
Fourth: He gave information in the Qur’an that is not found in the books of the People of the Book like the story of Hūd, Sālih, and Shu‘ayb and some details in the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Examples include: the speaking of Jesus in the cradle and the descent of the Table, as such information is unknown to the People of the Book. Examples also include the belief of the Pharaoh's wife and other things. Thus, it is illogical to say: that he learnt this from the People of the Book and his people were unaware of that. Rather, his people and others witnessed the traces of those who were warned and who were punished by Allah for rejecting the messengers like the people of ‘Ād, Thamūd, and others. Thus, people can take such existing traces as evidence on the messengers' truthfulness and on Allah's punishment of those who reject them. Furthermore, his people and others can take the fact that the People of the Book acknowledged his reports, which conformed with their books, as a proof of his truthfulness in what he reported about such matters that he did not learn from the People of the Book, along with knowing that he did not learn it from them. And this should be another proof that he did not learn it from the People of the Book as some might think.
Fifth: When his mission started, people were either polytheists or from the People of the Book, and no one was there upon the religion that he called for. People knew through mass transmission that the polytheists from the Quraysh and others did not know such stories. If we assume that they knew such stories, then, even though he invited them first to his religion, they rejected him and showed hostility towards him. Had anyone among them taught him this or had known that he had learnt this from someone else, he would have declared this.
Sixth: If this had happened, then someone must have known about it, even the close ones, and there must have been among his Companions, who believed in him, those who knew about it, and it would have become widespread even if they collaborated on keeping it secret, just as what was kept secret about the Bātinyyah (esoteric) states became widespread. Furthermore, had this been true, his close Companions would have internally known about his lying and such knowledge would have contradicted their belief in him internally as known in similar cases. So, how could this be true if the closest to him from among his Companions and the most knowledgeable about his condition were the greatest in terms of their love and allegiance to him?! This is in contrast to the one who reveals the opposite of what he conceals; the close companions of such a person would never revere him internally.
Thus, if people came to know that his people, who expressed extreme hostility towards him and were keen on finding fault with his prophethood through all means, stated that none among them had taught him this and that none among his people or in his city had known about this, then they would realize what his people realized, namely the fact that none informed him of this except Allah Almighty, and this is counted among his signs, tokens, and proofs.
In fact, Allah has made it clear in the Qur’an that this is among his signs, and when he informed his people of this, despite their rejection and hostility towards him, none of them could say to him: [Some of us had known this, and you had known it, and you learnt it from us, or from others]. Their acknowledgement that neither he nor they had known about this, despite their extreme hostility towards him, is clear proof for all nations that neither he nor they knew about this.
This is why when any of them attributed a flagrant lie to him, they would all know this is a lie, and when gathering and consulting each other on such a matter, they would know that this is nothing but a blatant lie against him. Examples include what some of them used to say about him. Some used to say he was insane, others would say he was a soothsayer, while others accused him of being a sorcerer or of learning this from a human, and others would say that these are only jumbled dreams. Allah Almighty reported their claims and clarified the fact that whoever said this was proven to be a liar, and that such claims made by those who were misguided and unfair were totally impressed by the Messenger and, thus, totally were confused and had no idea what to say.
[A. Matters of the unseen that the Prophet (ﷺ) informed about and occurred after his time]:
His signs (ﷺ) have encompassed all types of signs related to acts and reports, as he gave such amazing information about the past, present, and future unseen. Nothing like this was ever reported by any of the prophets before him, let alone those who were not prophets.
The Qur’an contains many incidents of the unseen that he reported, some of which were previously mentioned, as well as the authentic Hadīths about such things that he prophesied and that occurred just as he reported.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Hudhayfah reported: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stood before us one day and did not leave anything unsaid (that he had to say) at that very spot which would happen up to the Last Hour. Some memorized it and some forgot it. Those companions of mine knew them and there are certain things which slip out of my mind, but I remember them when seeing them just as a man remembers someone's face when he is away and recognizes him when seeing him." [143] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6604) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2891).
In "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Abu Zayd ‘Amr ibn Akhtab said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) led us in the Fajr prayer, then ascended the pulpit and addressed us until the time for the Zhuhr prayer arrived. He then came down, led us in the prayer, then ascended the pulpit and addressed us until the time for the ‘Asr prayer arrived. He then came down, led us in prayer, then ascended the pulpit and addressed us until sunset. He informed us of what was and of what is yet to come. The most knowledgeable among us is the one who memorized it best." [144] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2892).
In "Sahīh Al-Bukhāri Collection", ‘Adiyy ibn Hātim said: "While I was in the presence of the Prophet (ﷺ), a man came and complained to him of poverty. Then, another man came and complained of highway robbery. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'O ‘Adiyy, have you been to Al-Hīrah (a city in southern Iraq)?' I said: 'I have not been there, but I was informed about it.' He (ﷺ) said: 'If you live long, you will certainly see that a lady traveling from Al-Hīrah will (safely reach Makkah and) perform the Tawāf (circumambulation) of the Ka‘bah, fearing none but Allah.' I said to myself: 'What will happen to the robbers of the tribe of Tayyi’ who have spread evil throughout the country?' The Prophet (ﷺ) further said: 'If you live long, the treasures of Khosrau will be opened (and taken as spoils).' I asked: 'You mean Khosrau, son of Hurmuz?' He said: 'Khosrau, son of Hurmuz; and if you live long, you will see that one will carry a handful of gold or silver and go out looking for someone to accept it but will find none to accept it. And any of you, when meeting Allah, will meet Him without needing an interpreter between him and Allah to interpret for him, and Allah will say to him: "Did I not send a messenger to convey the message to you?" He will say: "Yes." Allah will say: "Did I not give you wealth and do you favors?" He will say: "Yes." Then he will look to his right and see nothing but Hell and look to his left and see nothing but Hell.'"
‘Adiyy further said: "I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say: 'Save yourself from Hellfire even with half a date (to be given in charity) and if you do not find half a date, then with a good, pleasant word.'"
‘Adiyy added: "(Later on) I saw a lady traveling from Al-Hīrah till she performed Tawāf of the Ka‘ba, fearing none but Allah. And I was among those who opened (conquered) the treasures of Khosrau, son of Hurmuz. If you live long, you will indeed see what the Prophet (ﷺ) had said: 'One will come out with a handful of...'" [145] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3595).
I said: What he reported about one's carrying a handful of gold or silver and not finding anyone to accept it happened just as he reported during the era of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azīz.
In "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Jābir ibn Samurah reported that Nāfi‘ ibn ‘Utbah said: "We were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in a battle. Some people came to him from the direction of the west. They were dressed in woolen clothes, and they met him on a hillock. They stood while the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was sitting. I said to myself: 'Go and stand between them and him, lest they should assassinate him.' Then I said [to myself] that he was having a private conversation with them. However, I went to them and stood between them and him. I memorized four words that he (the Prophet) said, which I count with my fingers: 'You will attack the Arabian Peninsula and Allah will conquer it; then Persia and Allah will conquer it; then you will attack the Romans and Allah will conquer them; then you will attack the Anti-Christ and Allah will conquer him.'" [146] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2900).
Al-Bukhāri narrated on the authority of ‘Awf ibn Mālik that he said: "I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) during the Battle of Tabūk, while he was sitting in a leather tent. He said: 'Count six (signs) that indicate the approaching of the Hour: my death; the conquest of Jerusalem; a plague that will afflict you (and kill you in great numbers) as the plague that afflicts sheep; the affluence of money to such an extent that even if one is given one hundred dinars, he will not be satisfied; an affliction that no Arab house will be safe from; and a truce between you and Banu al-Asfar (the Romans), who will betray you and march on you under eighty flags. Under each flag will be twelve thousand soldiers.'" [147] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3176).
I said: Jerusalem was conquered after his death during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb. Then, the great plague broke out in the Levant, the plague of ‘Amwas, then during the caliphate of ‘Umar, in which a vast number of people died including Mu‘ādh ibn Jabal and ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrāh. It was the first plague that occurred in the history of Islam. Thus, what he reported took place as they were afflicted by a plague like that which afflicts the sheep. Then, the money increased during the caliphate of ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān to such an extent that even if one was given one hundred dinars, he would be dissatisfied. The money increased to such a level that a horse would be priced according to its weight. Then, a public turmoil, which no Arab house would be safe from, occurred when ‘Uthmān was murdered, and a strong dissension occurred between Muslims, and they fought against one another on the Day of the Camel and the Day of Siffīn.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Khabbāb ibn al-Aratt said: "We complained to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while he was lying in the shade of the Ka‘bah, making a pillow from his cloak, and we had faced much persecution from the polytheists. We said: 'Will you not invoke Allah for us? Will you not supplicate for our victory (over our opponents)?' He sat with his face turned red, then he said: 'By Allah, among those who were before you, a man would be seized and combed with iron combs between his flesh and sinew but this would not turn him away from his religion, and he would be held in a pit dug for him in the ground, and a saw would be placed above his head and he would be sawed into two halves from his head, and this would not turn him away from his religion. Verily, Allah will bring this matter (Islam) to its completion until the traveler from among you will walk from San‘ā’ to Hadramaut (both are cities in Yemen) fearing none except Allah Almighty and the wolf for his sheep, but you are in haste.'" [148] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3612), (3852), (6943).
In the two "Sahīh Collections" - and the wording is that of Al-Bukhāri - Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The Hour will not be established until you fight the Turks, who have small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces look like hammered shields. The Hour will not be established until you fight people wearing shoes made of hair." [149] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2928) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2912).
I said: The Muslims fought, indeed, against all such cults just as the Prophet (ﷺ) reported and this is well-known. As for fighting against the Turks from among the Tatars and others, who match this description, it is something famous and widely known. The Hadīth about them had been found in more than ten thousand copies - big and small - of the Muslims' books before fighting against those who emerged from the east and who match such a description in a way that none who saw them with his own eyes could ever describe them in such an accurate manner.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The Hour will not be established until a fire comes out of the land of Hijaz and throws light on the necks of camels in Busra." [150] This fire had, indeed, appeared in the year six hundred and fifty something and people saw it and it would illuminate its light on the necks of camels in Busra. It would burn the rock but did not cook the meat. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (7118) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2902).
In "Sahīh Al-Bukhāri Collection", Abu Bakrah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said about Al-Hasan, his grandson, while delivering a Khutbah (sermon) from above the pulpit: "This son of mine is a master and Allah will reconcile by means of him two huge groups of Muslims." [151] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2704).
I said: This happened just as he (ﷺ) reported, for almost thirty years after the Messenger's death, the fortieth Hijri year, Allah reconciled by means of Al-Hasan two huge groups of Muslims who fought against each other in Siffīn, i.e., the soldiers of ‘Ali and those of Mu‘āwiyah.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", the following was reported with several Isnāds (chain of narrators): "When Dhul-Khuwaysirah said to him: 'O Muhammad, be just, for you did not act justly.' He (ﷺ) replied: 'Woe to you! I would be a desperate loser if I did not act justly.' Some of his Companions said: 'Allow me to chop the head of this hypocrite off.' However, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'A people will emerge from the progeny of this (man), if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs and your recitation (of the Qur’an) with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers, fasting and recitation in comparison to theirs. They recite the Qur’an, but it does not go beyond their throats. They will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game's body. The sign by which such people will be recognized is a man without a hand and with a lump of flesh on his arm moving loosely and with few hairs on it." [152] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3610) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1063).
A narration in the two "Sahīh Collections" reads: "A group will secede at a time of division among the Muslims, and they will be killed by one of the two groups that is closer to the truth." [153] In fact, they appeared after his death some twenty years at the end of ‘Ali's caliphate when the Muslims were divided. A civil war broke out between the soldiers of ‘Ali and the soldiers of Mu‘āwiyah. They were killed by ‘Ali ibn Abi Tālib and his companions as they were the group closer to the truth. The other group killed ‘Ammār ibn Yāsir, and it was the transgressing group. ‘Ali had already informed them of that Hadīth and of their sign. So, they sought that person who had no hand but could not find him until ‘Ali searched for him by himself and found him killed. Thereupon, he prostrated in gratitude to Allah. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1065).
In the "Sahīh Collection", it was reported that he (ﷺ) said: "There will come after me rulers who will delay the prayer beyond its prescribed time. So, observe the prayer at its prescribed time and consider your prayer with them as a voluntary prayer." [154] And they appeared a while after him and they used to delay the Zhuhr prayer until the time of the ‘Asr prayer and used to delay the ‘Asr prayer until the sun would turn yellow. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (648).
In "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "There are two types of inhabitants of Hell whom I have not seen: people having whips like the tails of cows with which they will beat people, and women who will be dressed but appear to be naked, inviting to evil; and they themselves will be inclined to it. Their heads will appear like the humps of the Bactrian camels inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise, nor will they smell its fragrance, which is smelled from such-and-such a distance." [155] Those appeared a long time after him, and such women appeared many years after this with turbans on their heads like the humps of Bactrian camels, calling the turban: camel's hump. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2128).
In the Hadīth of Muslim, Asmā’ bint Abi Bakr reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "There will be a big liar and a tyrant in Thaqīf (a city near to Makkah)." [156] The big liar emerged from Thaqīf, and he was Al-Mukhtār ibn Abi ‘Ubayd who announced adopting Shiism and the idea of the retaliation of Al-Husayn. Consequently, he killed ‘Ubaydullāh ibn Ziyād besides others from among the murderers of Al-Husayn. Then, he pretended that he was receiving divine revelation descending on him. His news even reached Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās, and it was said to one of them that he was receiving divine revelation, and it was said to the other that divine revelation was descending upon him. Thereupon, one of them replied by saying: {But the devils whisper to their [human] friends.} [Surat al-An‘ām: 121] While the other replied by saying: {Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend? They descend upon every sinful liar.} [Surat ash-Shu‘arā’: 221-222] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2545).
As for the tyrant, he was Al-Hajjāj ibn Yūsuf ath-Thaqafi. He was a bloodthirsty and unrightful oppressor seeking to reinforce the authority of ‘Abdul-Malik ibn Marawān, who assigned him as his deputy.
In "Sahīh Ibn Hibbān Collection", Ismā‘īl ibn Abi Khālid reported that Qays ibn Abi Hāzim said: "When ‘Ā’ishah was on her way, she passed by some of the wells of the Banu ‘Āmir at night. She heard the barking of dogs and asked: 'What is the name of this well?' They replied: 'This is the well of Haw’ab.' She replied: 'I think I have to return.' They said: 'Take it easy, may Allah have mercy upon you. Proceed so that the Muslims can see you and Allah will make peace between them by means of you.' She replied: 'I think I must return. I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: "Then what would you (wives of the Prophet) do when you hear the barking of the dogs of Haw’ab?'" [157] Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6732) and Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (24862).
In it there is also a Hadīth in which Ibn Abi Tālib said: "‘Abdullah ibn Salām said to me, after I had put my foot in the stirrup heading towards Iraq: 'Do not go to Iraq, for if you go there, you will be hit by the edge of the sword.'" ‘Ali said: "By Allah, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said this to me. Abu al-Aswad said: 'I said to myself: I have not witnessed a day like this when a warrior would tell people the like of this.'" [158] Narrated by Ibn Hibbān in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6733) and Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4703).
This and other examples are among the future incidents that were reported by the Prophet (ﷺ) and occurred after him just as he had reported, and they were witnessed by the people.
[B. Matters of the unseen that the Prophet (ﷺ) informed of and that occurred during his time]:
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Sahl ibn Sa‘d reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said on the Day of Khaybar: "Verily, I will give the banner tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and is loved by Allah and His Messenger, and Allah will bring victory with his hands." [159] And this was what actually happened. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4210) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2406).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent me along with Abu Marthad al-Ghanawy, Az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām, and Al-Miqdād - all of us were horsemen - and said: 'Proceed until you reach the garden of Khākh, for there you will find a woman who has a letter from Hātib to the polytheists.'"
He (‘Ali) said: "We caught up with her while she was on her slow camel, and we said to her: 'Where is the letter?' She said: 'I have no letter.' We made her camel kneel and searched for the letter in her luggage but could not find it. We said: 'Definitely, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not lie; either bring out the letter or we shall take off your clothes.' When she saw that I was extending my hand to her waist sheet and she was tying a sheet round herself, she took out the letter from her braid. We took the letter and brought it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and it read: From Hātib ibn Abi Balta‘ah to some of the polytheists in Makkah informing them of some of the plans of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'O Hātib, what is this?'
He (Hātib) replied: 'Do not be hasty in judging me. I am a man who was attached to the Quraysh but was not one of them. The Emigrants, who are with you, have relatives who will protect their families in Makkah, and I wanted, as I have no blood ties among them, to do them a favor so that they would protect my family. I did not do it out of disbelief or apostacy from my religion, or because I approved of disbelief after embracing Islam.'
Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'He has told you the truth.'
‘Umar said: 'Let me strike the neck of this hypocrite.'
He (ﷺ) said: 'Indeed, he was present at Badr, and you do not know, perhaps Allah looked upon the people of Badr and said: Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you.'" [160] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3983) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2494).
This letter contained information to the polytheists that the Prophet (ﷺ) was intending to attack them, and Allah Almighty informed him about it.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Abu Hurayrah said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced to the people the death of Negus on the very same day he died, and he went out to the place of prayer and made four Takbīrs (saying: Allāhu Akbar)." [161] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1333) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2494).
Al-Bukhāri narrated on the authority of Anas that he said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced to the people the death of Zayd, Ja‘far and Ibn Rawāhah before the news of their death reached them. He said: 'Zayd took the banner and was martyred, then Ja‘far took it and was martyred, then ‘Abdullah ibn Rawāhah took it and was martyred.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said this with his eyes flowing with tears. Then, he added: 'Then, Khālid ibn al-Walīd, one of the swords of Allah, took it and Allah granted them victory.'" [162] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3757).
[Third: Questions of the People of the Book that indicate the prophethood of Muhammad (ﷺ)]:
The People of the Book, who were in Madīnah, asked him about certain things, which were different from the things he was asked about while being in Makkah, as the polytheists of the Quraysh used to send to the Jews in Madīnah asking them about Muhammad (ﷺ), and the Jews would reply by sending them questions through which they could examine his prophethood.
[Questions of ‘Abdullah ibn Salām]
Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) arrived at Madīnah, ‘Abdullah ibn Salām went to him and said: 'I shall ask you of three things that none knows except a prophet: What is the first sign of the Hour? What is the first food the dwellers of Paradise will eat? What makes the child more resemble his mother or his father?' He (ﷺ) replied: 'Gabriel has just informed me of this.' ‘Abdullah said: 'This is the enemy of the Jews from among the angels.' He (ﷺ) said: 'As for the first sign of the Hour, it will be a fire that will gather them from the east to the west. As for the first food eaten by the dwellers of Paradise, it will be the extra lobe of the fish liver. As for the child, if the man's discharge (semen) precedes the woman's, the child will resemble his father, but if the woman's discharge precedes that of the man, the child will resemble his mother.' He (‘Abdullah) said: 'I testify that there is no god, but Allah and I testify that you are the Messenger of Allah.'
He, then, added: 'O Messenger of Allah, the Jews are slanderous people, and if they learn about my embracing Islam before you ask them about me, they will defame me in your presence.' When the Jews came, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'What kind of man is ‘Abdullah ibn Salām among you?' They replied: 'The best of us and son of the best of us, our master and son of our master, and the most knowledgeable among us and son of the most knowledgeable among us.' The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'What would you think if ‘Abdullah embraced Islam?' They said: 'May Allah protect him from that.' Then, ‘Abdullah ibn Salām came out to them and said: 'I testify that there is no god, but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.' On this, the Jews said: 'He is the most wicked among us and son of the most wicked among us.' So, they degraded him. On this, he (‘Abdullah) said: 'This is that I was afraid and wary of.'" [163] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3938).
[Questions of the Jewish Rabbi]
Muslim narrated in his "Sahīh Collection" on the authority of Thawbān that he said: "I was standing in the presence the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) when a Jewish rabbi came and said: 'Peace be upon you, O Muhammad.' I pushed him so hard that he was about to fall, and he said: 'Why are you pushing me?' I said: 'Why do you not say: O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I called him by the name his family gave him.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'The name my family gave me is Muhammad.' The Jew said: 'I came to ask you?' He (ﷺ) said: 'If I answered you, would that benefit you?' He said: 'I will hear it with my ear.' He poked the ground [164] with a staff that he had and said: 'Ask.' i.e., the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).
The Jew said: 'Where will the people be when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will the heavens?' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'In the darkness near the Bridge.'
He said: 'Who will be the first to cross it?' He replied: 'The poor Emigrants (Muhājirūn).'
The Jew asked: 'What will their meal be when they enter Paradise?' He said: 'The extra lobe of fish liver.'
He asked: 'What will they have after that?' He said: 'The bull of Paradise which grazed through its outskirts will be slaughtered for them.'
He asked: 'What will be their drink thereafter?' He replied: 'From a fountain therein called Salsabīl.'
He said: 'You have told the truth.'
He added: 'I also came to ask you about something that none knows from the people of earth except a prophet, or one or two men besides him.' He (ﷺ) said: 'If I answered you, would that benefit you?' He said: 'I will hear it with my ear.'
He said: 'I came to ask you about the child.' He (ﷺ) said: 'The fluid of man is white, and the woman's is yellow. When they meet, if the fluid of man overcomes that of the woman, it will become a male by Allah's permission. If the woman's fluid overcomes that of the man, it will become a female by Allah's permission.'
The Jew said: 'You have told the truth and you are, indeed, a prophet.' Then, he left.
Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'He asked me such things that I had no knowledge of until Allah Almighty gave it to me.'" [165] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (315).
[Questions posed by a group of Jews]
Abu Dāwūd at-Tayālisi narrated that ‘Abdul-Hamīd ibn Bihrām reported from Shahr ibn Hawshab from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: "One day a group of Jews came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, tell us about things that we shall ask you and none knows but a prophet.' He said: 'Ask me whatever you wish; however, guarantee me the pledge of Allah and what Jacob took as a covenant from his children, that if I tell you something you truly know, you will pledge to embrace Islam.' They replied: 'We grant you this.'
He (ﷺ) said: 'Then ask me whatever you wish.' They said: 'Tell us about four things: tell us about the food that Israel (Jacob) made unlawful for himself before the Torah was sent, and tell us about the man's fluid and how it causes the child to be male and how it causes the child to be female, and tell us how this Prophet sleeps, and who is your ally from the angels?'
He said: 'Would you give Allah your covenant and promise to pledge allegiance to me if I answered you?' They gave him what he asked for of the covenant and promise and he said: 'By Allah Who sent the Torah on Moses, do you know that Israel, Jacob, was severely sick for a long time and made a vow to Allah if He cured him of his sickness, he would prevent himself from the drink and food he favored most; his most favorite drink was camel milk and his most favorite food was camel meat?'
They said: 'O Allah, yes (we know).' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'O Allah, be a witness to that.'
He said: 'By Allah Who is the only God and Who sent the Torah on Moses, do you know that the man's discharge is thick and white while the woman's discharge is thin and yellow, and whichever overcomes [the other] will determine the child's sex and resemblance by Allah's permission?'
They said: 'By Allah, yes (we know).' He said: 'O Allah, be a witness to that.'
He said: 'By Allah Who is the only God and Who sent the Torah on Moses, do you know that the eyes of this prophet sleep, but his heart does not sleep?'
They said: 'O Allah, yes (we know).' He said: 'O Allah, be a witness to that.'
They said: 'Now tell us who your ally is from among the angels, and only then, shall we either join you or depart you.'
He said: 'My ally is Gabriel (peace be upon him), and no prophet was ever sent by Allah except that Gabriel was his ally.'
They said: 'Then, we shall depart you. Had it been that your ally was someone else other than him, we would have followed you and believed you.'
He said: 'What prevents you from believing him?'
They said: 'He is our enemy from the angels;' thereupon, Allah Almighty revealed: {Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel – it is he who brings down this [Qur’an] to your heart by Allah’s permission, confirming} till {then Allah is indeed an enemy to the disbelievers.}" [166] Narrated by At-Tayālisi in his "Musnad Collection" no. (2854).
[Indications of the questions posed by the People of the Book]
In these Hadīths, the Jewish scholars - like ‘Abdullah ibn Salām and others - used to ask him about certain matters, which - as they said - were not known except to a prophet, i.e., those who learned them from the prophets. So, the questioners knew the answers to such questions. It was also mentioned: "None knew it but a prophet or a few people."
They used to test him with such questions to see if he knew about them, for if he knows what no one knows except a prophet, then he himself is a prophet. It is known that their aim of this could only be fulfilled if they already knew that he did not learn about such matters from the People of the Book or from those who learnt from them; otherwise, it is known that such matters were known to some people, who learnt about them from the prophets.
This proves that such questioners from among the People of the Book knew that no human had taught him the knowledge the People of the Book had, for if they had considered this to be possible, then it would not have served their purpose behind testing him to see whether he was a prophet or not. Had they considered it possible that he learned about what none could know but a prophet from the People of the Book, then he would have been like them and his knowledge about such matters and providing them with answers would not have been a proof of his prophethood. So, those questioners must have been certain about the fact that he did not learn from the People of the Book.
This took place in Madīnah after he had lived in Makkah for ten or more years and his matter was spread. At that time, his people rejected him and were keen on invalidating his call through all means. Had there been in Makkah or Madīnah someone of the People of the Book from whom he could learn, or had he met someone of the People of the Book on the way and learnt from him, this would have libeled the purpose of those questioners. Thus, the fact that he did not learn about the unseen from a human was known to the People of the Book. Had he learnt it from the People of the Book, taking into account that he rejected them and fought against them, they would have declared this, and it would have been circulated among the People of the Book. In such a case, they would have responded to his answers by saying: You have learnt this from so-and-so, and so-and-so who is one of us, or by saying: You have been taught this by some people who belong to our religion.
There were also questions they used to send to his people from the Quraysh to ask him about certain matters saying: "If he informed you of such matters, then, he is a prophet, otherwise, he is a fabricator," and saying: "Ask him about matters that none knows except a prophet."
The two parties involved here were the people of Madīnah and his people from the Quraysh. This makes it clear that his polytheistic people and the People of the Book agreed that he had learnt none of this from a human, for if they had thought this to be possible, their asking him about such matters would not have made sense and they would not have said: "That none knows except a prophet." They all knew that some of the People of the Book had knowledge about such matters and this is how they could judge whether his answers conformed to what the prophets had said or not.
They also knew that answering such questions from those who possessed such knowledge from among the People of the Book and those who learnt from them would not indicate their prophethood, as if some of the People of the Book would answer such questions. Similarly, if people ask some Muslims nowadays about such matters or others that are related to the unseen which are not known to anyone but a prophet, this will not be sign of their prophethood because they have learnt it from the prophets. So, they meant by saying: "That no one knows except a prophet" that no one knows it from the beginning without being taught by a human except a prophet.
This also proves that the polytheists and the People of the Book all agreed that he did not learn from a human, even though his news was spread, and his people were aware of his secrets, and if this had been true, it would have become known. Had they thought of this, i.e., the possibility of his learning it secretly from a human, it would not have been logical to take it as proof of his prophethood. This further proves that they were certain that he did not learn this from a human, neither secretly nor publicly. Had he done so, it would have been through the ways mentioned here.
[Fourth: The miraculous nature of the Qur’an]
This is clear in several aspects, in general and in detail.
As for the general aspect, both the notables and the commoners in most of the nations knew through mass transmission that he was the one who brought this Qur’an. The reports about this were mass transmitted in a greater way than the reports of each of the prophets, kings, philosophers, and others.
The Qur’an itself challenges the nations to imitate it, and the "tahaddi" (challenge) here is meant to urge them, i.e., to invite and encourage them to confront it. It is said: "Hadāni" to do this, i.e., he urged me to do it, and this is why the cameleer is called "hādi al-‘īs" because with his singing he urges the camel to walk. Some people may use "tahaddi" to refer to the claim of prophethood; however, the first is its original meaning.
Allah Almighty says in Surat Taha: {Or do they say, “He has made it [the Qur’an] up”? Rather, they are not willing to believe. Then let them produce a discourse like this, if they are truthful.} [Surat at-Tūr: 33-34] Here, He Almighty says: {Then let them produce a discourse like this if they are truthful}, in their claim of his making it up. This is because if Muhammad could make it up, just as man could utter poetry and prose, then this is possible for people of his same species to do so and bring the like of it.
Then, Allah Almighty challenged them to bring ten surahs like those of the Qur’an, as He says: {Or do they say, “He has fabricated it”? Say, “Then produce ten fabricated Chapters like it and seek help from whoever you can besides Allah, if you are truthful!”} [Surat Hūd: 13] Then, He challenged them to bring one surah, as He Almighty says: {This Qur’an could not have been produced by anyone other than Allah. It is a confirmation of what came before it and an explanation of the Scripture, and is undoubtedly from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say, “He fabricated it?” Say, “Produce then one chapter like it, and call upon whoever you can other than Allah, if you are truthful!”} [Surat Yūnus: 37-38]
Allah Almighty asked them and all those who could other than Allah to bring ten fabricated surahs. Then, He challenged them and all others to bring one surah only, and said: {But if they do not respond to you, then know that it has been revealed with the knowledge of Allah, and that none has the right to be worshiped except Him.} [Surat Hūd: 14] This is the basic rule of his call; testifying that there is no god but Allah and testifying that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
Allah Almighty says: {But if they do not respond to you, then know that it has been revealed with the knowledge of Allah.} Allah Almighty also says: {But Allah bears witness to what He has sent down to you, as He has sent it down with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness; but sufficient is Allah as a Witness.} [Surat an-Nisā’: 166] i.e., He knows that it was sent down and not fabricated. He Almighty also says: {This Qur’an could not possibly have been produced by anyone other than Allah.} [Surat Yūnus: 37] i.e., It could not be fabricated. Saying: He could not do this, does not just negate the act but it also negates the possibility of doing the act. So, Allah Almighty stated that such a thing does not occur; rather, it is impossible to occur. The meaning will, thus, be: It is impossible, improbable, and impermissible for the Qur’an to be produced by anyone other than Allah, for the one who fabricates it apart from Allah must be a creature and this is beyond the creature's ability.
This challenge was in Makkah, as these surahs were Makkan: Yūnus, Hūd, and at-Tūr. Then, He challenged them again in Madīnah after the Hijrah, as He says in Surat al-Baqarah, which is a Madani Surah: {If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down upon Our slave, then produce a chapter like it and call upon your helpers other than Allah, if you are truthful.} Then He says: {But if you did not do it, and you can never do it; then beware of the Fire whose fuel will be people and stones.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 23-24] Here Allah Almighty mentioned two things:
First, His saying: {But if you did not do it, and you can never do it; then beware of the Fire.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 24] He says: If you did not do it, then you knew it is the truth. So, fear Allah and do not deny Him lest you should be overwhelmed by the torment with which He threatened the deniers. By this, he was calling to the way of his Lord with a goodly exhortation after calling them with wisdom, which is reasoning with them in the best manner.
Second, His saying: {and you can never do it}, "never" here negates the occurrence of the act in the future. So, He made the decision that they will not be able to produce a surah like it in the future, as He previously stated.
Allah Almighty commanded him to say the following in Surat Subhān - which is a Makkan surah that He begins with mentioning the Isrā’ (the Prophet's night journey to Jerusalem) - while he was in Makkah according to the Qur’anic text and the mass transmitted reports, and He mentioned therein His address to the disbelievers in Makkah that clarify this point, as He says: {Say, “If all humans and jinn were to come together to produce something similar to this Qur’an, they would not be able to produce the like of it, even if they collaborated with one another.”} [Surat al-Isrā’: 88]
Since he challenged them more than once to produce the like of it, which is something that would invalidate his call, it is known that if this had been within their ability, they would have done it. Since the perfect and confirmed reason existed, therefore, if the ability had also existed, they both would have led to some act, and this applies to all people on earth.
This entails that all people become fully aware of the fact that none on earth can produce the like of this Qur’an with or without using tricks. In fact, this is more outstanding than all the other repeated signs, like bringing the dead back to life, as none has brought the like of this miracle.
The Qur’an is a miraculous sign not only because of its eloquence and rhetoric, or only because of its structure and style, or only because of its giving information about the unseen, or only because of dismissing the justifications of producing the like of it, or only because of depriving them of their ability to produce the like of it; rather, it is a manifest and miraculous sign from many aspects, which are:
- The wording.
- The structure.
- The rhetoric in the words which indicates their meanings.
- Its meanings that convey commands and its meanings that convey information about Allah Almighty, His names and attributes, His angels, etc.
- Its meanings that convey information about the past and the future unseen.
- Giving information about the Hereafter.
- The certain proofs and the rational analogies represented in the examples cited, as Allah Almighty says: {We have explained every kind of example for mankind in this Qur’an, yet most people persist in disbelief.} [Surat al-Isrā’: 89] He Almighty also says: {We have surely diversified in this Qur’an every kind of example for people, but man is the most quarrelsome of all beings.} [Surat al-Kahf: 54] He Almighty also says: {Indeed, We have presented for mankind all kinds of examples in this Qur’an, so that they may take heed (27) an Arabic Qur’an, free of flaws and contradictions, so that they may be conscious of Allah.} [Surat az-Zumar: 27-28]
Besides all the aspects that people mentioned about the miraculous nature of the Qur’an, they represent irrefutable proof of its miraculousness, and there is no contradiction between them; rather, each group explained these aspects when they came to know about them.
As for the detailed aspects, we say: The structure and the style of the Qur’an are wonderful and outstanding. Its style is not like the known styles of speech, and none used a similar style. It is not anything like poetry, Rajaz (a measurement used in classical Arabic poetry), oration, or letters. Its structure is not like the structure of people's speech, neither of the Arabs nor of the non-Arabs.
Moreover, the eloquence and the rhetoric of the Qur’an are amazing and extraordinary, and nothing is equal to it in the speech of all creatures. Talking about this in detail would consume a lot of time and those who reflect and contemplate are aware of this.
Also, the information itself given by the Qur’an about the Oneness of Allah, His names and attributes is amazing and extraordinary and nothing like it exists in the speech of human beings, be they prophets or others.
The same applies to the information it gave about the angels, the Throne, the Kursi (footstool), the jinn, the creation of Adam, etc. It also applies to what the Qur’an enjoined of the religion and laws, and its reported examples and clarified proofs.
Whoever contemplates the writings of all rational people on theology, creation, and politics will realize the enormous difference between such writings and what has been mentioned in the divine books. These include the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the prophets' scriptures. They will find an even greater difference between the wording of the Qur’an and its structure, and between the Arabs' words and their structure.
In fact, the miraculous nature of its meanings is far greater and more magnificent than the miraculous nature of its wording, and the incapability of all rational nations to produce similar meanings is far greater than the Arabs' incapability to produce similar wordings.
Even if we assume that what is in the Torah and the Gospel is similar to the Qur’an, this will not negate the miraculous nature of the Qur’an because these are also the books of Allah, and the idea of a prophet bringing a sign similar to that of another prophet is not impossible just as the Messiah came with the sign of bringing the dead back to life, which had already occurred at the hands of others. However, this is not the case as there is nothing in the Torah or the Gospel that is like the meanings of the Qur’an, neither in terms of reality, nor in terms of quality or quantity. Rather, the difference is evident for whoever reflects on the Qur’an and reflects on these books.
Those scholars and knowledgeable people to whom such matters have become evident realize its miraculous nature from this aspect. However, those to whom such matters have not become evident should suffice with what is evident to them and to their counterparts, like the inability of all people to produce its like along with the Prophet's challenging them and asserting their inability, as this is something obvious to all.
The proofs of prophethood are of the same type as the proofs of lordship; they include proofs that are manifest to everyone like the witnessed incidents, such as: the creation of animals, plants, and clouds, to cause rain, etc. They also include proofs that are unique to those who know them, such as: the fine details of anatomy, the magnitudes of planets and their movements, etc.
All people need to acknowledge the Creator and acknowledge His messengers. Allah grants His slaves whatever they need in their religious as well as their worldly life in a general and easy manner.
Since their need for air is greater than their need for water, and their need for water is greater than their need for food, Allah Almighty has made the air available everywhere and, in all times, because living beings need it. Water comes next; however, it is more available and easier to find than food because the need for it is greater.
Likewise, what people need most in their religion is proof of lordship, followed by the proof of prophethood. Hence, Allah made them easier and simpler to realize than what common people do not need such as: the similarity and variation of bodies, the permanence or perishability of the incidental attributes, the establishment or negation of the individual essence, issues related to the woman experiencing Istihādah (vaginal bleeding outside the menstrual period), missing Hajj and its invalidators, and the like of such matters that are tackled by some scholars.
[Fifth: The signs related to ability, action, and influence]
[The First Type]: What exists in the celestial world:
This includes the splitting of the moon, the full guarding of heaven with the burning flames when his mission began, and his ascent to heaven. Allah Almighty mentioned the splitting of the moon and clarified the fact that it was He Who did that, and He stated that for two great purposes:
First: To serve as a sign of his prophethood, when the polytheists asked him for a sign, he showed them the splitting of the moon.
Second: It is an indication of the possibility of the splitting of orbits, which proves what the prophets stated about the splitting of the heavens. This is why Allah Almighty says: {The Hour has drawn near and the moon has split asunder. Whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, “Same old magic!” They deny [the truth] and follow their desires, but every matter will reach its inevitable end. There have already come to them stories [of destroyed nations] that are sufficient to deter them, which contain extensive wisdom, but the warnings are of no avail. So, turn away from them [O Prophet]. On the Day when the caller will summon them to a horrific event, with eyes downcast, they will come out of the graves like scattered locusts.} [Surat al-Qamar: 1-7]
He mentioned the approach of the Hour and the splitting of the moon, and He made the sign in the splitting of the moon not of the sun or any other planets because it is closer to the earth compared to the sun and the stars. The act of splitting occurred in the moon apart from the other parts of the orbit because it is the luminous body where the split could be obviously seen by all those who look at it in a way that dispels all doubts. And if the moon itself can be split, then, the place where it is found, i.e., the heaven, could be split also, and people have witnessed this with their own eyes.
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to recite this Surah in the major congregational prayers, like the Friday prayer and the prayer of the two Eids, so that the people would listen to what it includes of the signs and indications of prophethood and take lessons from it. All people acknowledge this and do not deny it; hence, it became known that the splitting of the moon was known to people at large.
In "Sahīh Muslim Collection", ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb asked Abu Wāqid al-Laythi: "What did the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to recite in the Ad'ha and Fitr prayers?" He said: "He used to recite therein Surat Qāf and Surat al-Qamar." [167] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (891).
It is known - as an established rule - that if the moon had not split, those who believed in him would have denied this, let alone his enemies from among the disbelievers and the hypocrites. It is also known that he was most keen on making people believe and follow him. So, had it not been split, he would not have mentioned it and recited it before all people, and he would not have taken it as proof, and a sign of his truthfulness.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Anas ibn Mālik reported: "The people of Makkah asked the Prophet of Allah (ﷺ) to show them a sign, so he showed them the splitting of the moon twice." [168] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3637) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2802).
He also reported: "The people of Makkah asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to show them a sign, so the moon was split into two parts." [169] At-Tirmidhi added: "Then, the following was revealed: {The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split asunder} till the part where Allah Almighty says: {Same old magic}; he said: it means continuous one." [170] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4868) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2802). Narrated by At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3286).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Ibn Mas‘ūd reported: "The moon was split during the Prophet's lifetime into two parts. So, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Bear witness to it.'" [171] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3636) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2800).
Ibn Mas‘ūd also reported: "I saw the moon split into two parts in Makkah before the departure of the Prophet (ﷺ), one part above the Mount Abu Qubays and the other above As-Suwaydā’. The disbelievers of the Quraysh - the people of Makkah - said: 'This is magic that Ibn Abi Kabshah (Muhammad) has cast on you. Ask the travelers, if they saw what you saw, then he would be truthful and if they did not see what you saw, then this is magic.' The travelers were, thus, asked and they came from all directions, and they said that they had seen it." [172] [Narrated by Al-Bukhāri and Muslim] Narrated by Al-Byhaqi in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah (2/266-267) and Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (3778), and it is found in the two "Sahīh Collections" with the same wording of the previous Hadīth, not with this wording.
Such signs also include his ascent to what is above the heavens on the Night of Mi‘rāj, which was mass transmitted in the Hadīths and which was stated in the Qur’an that informed of his night journey from the Sacred Mosque to the Aqsa Mosque, i.e., Jerusalem, and informed of his ascent to the heavens in another place. Allah Almighty says: {Glory be to the One Who took His slave [Muhammad] by night from the Sacred Mosque [in Makkah] to the Aqsā Mosque [in Jerusalem] whose surroundings We have blessed, so that We may show him some of Our signs. Indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.} [Surat al-Isrā’: 1]
Here, Allah Almighty informed of his night journey between the two mosques and stated that He did this to show him some of His signs. It is known that all people have seen the signs that were on earth; thus, it becomes known that this was meant to show him signs that most people have not seen, as He says in another surah: {Do you dispute with him concerning what he saw? He certainly saw him a second time at the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary [in the seventh heaven] near which is the Garden of Abode, when the Lote Tree was overwhelmed with [divine] splendors. His gaze did not wander, nor did it look beyond the limit. He certainly saw some of the greatest signs of his Lord.} [Surat an-Najm: 12-18]
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Ibn ‘Abbās said about the verse where Allah Almighty says: {We did not make the sight which We showed you except as a test for people}, he said: "It was an actual sight that was shown to the Prophet (ﷺ) on his night journey." [173] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3888).
His informing of this night journey - to show him some of His signs - clarifies the fact that he saw of His signs what people did not see. He clarified this in another surah where He stated that he saw Gabriel at the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary, near which the Garden of Abode lies, when the Lote Tree was overwhelmed with divine splendors, and that he saw with his own eyes the greatest signs of his Lord.
In this surah, He mentioned his night journey because He enabled him to prove it. When he informed them of his night journey, some denied it and expressed astonishment. They asked him about its description and features, and he gave them its exact description without leaving out anything thereof. He also informed them of their caravan that was on the way. So, they realized his truthfulness, and his truthfulness in this regard was a sign of his truthfulness in reporting what they were unaware of. Covering such a big distance in such a short time was to show him the signs that only the prophets had the privilege to see.
Second type: Signs related to the atmosphere:
Such as his Istisqā’ (invoking Allah for rain), his Istis-hā’ (invoking Allah for uncloudy weather), the obedience of the clouds in its formation and its disappearance by his invocation (ﷺ) and causing to rain by his invocation (ﷺ).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Anas ibn Mālik reported: "A man entered the mosque on a Friday through the gate facing Dār al-Qadā’ while the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was standing delivering the sermon. The man stood in front of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, the livestock have died, and the means have been cut off. So, supplicate Allah for rain.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) raised his hands and said: 'O Allah, bless us with rain. O Allah, bless us with rain. O Allah, bless us with rain.' By Allah, there were no clouds or cloudlets in the sky, which was as clear as glass, and there was no house between us and Mount Sal‘. By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, as soon as he lowered his hands, clouds gathered like mountains, and before he got down from the pulpit, I saw the rain flowing on his beard." [174] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1013) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (897).
Another narration reads: "Then, a big cloud like a shield appeared from behind it (the mountain) and when it arrived in the middle of the sky, it spread out and rained. By Allah, we could not see the sun for a week. Next Friday, a man entered through the same gate while the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was delivering the sermon. The man stood in front of him and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, the livestock have died, and the means have been cut off. So, supplicate Allah to withhold the rain.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) raised his hands and said: 'O Allah, around us and not on us. O Allah, on the plateaus, on the hills, in the valleys, and on the places where trees grow.' So, in whatever direction he pointed with his hand, the clouds dispersed and cleared away, until I could see (the sky of) Madīnah like a hole between the clouds. The valley of Qanāt remained flooded for one month, and no one came from outside but talked about the abundant rain." [175] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (933) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (897).
This also includes the fact that Allah Almighty granted him victory by means of the wind about which He says: {O you who believe, remember Allah’s favor upon you when [enemy] forces came against you, but We sent against them a violent wind and forces that you could not see. And Allah is All-Seeing of what you do.} [Surat al-Ahzāb: 9]
Mujāhid said: He means the Saba (easterly) wind that was sent against the confederates on the Day of the Trench until it overturned their pots and took down their tents and caused them to leave; and {forces that you could not see}: means the angels.
In "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "I was given victory with the Saba (easterly wind) and the people of ‘Ād were destroyed with the Dabūr (westerly wind)." [176] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1035) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (900).
In Al-Maghāzi Wa As-Siyar, the story of the confederates is mentioned and how the wind and the angels were sent against them and how they were defeated without fighting.
The Third Type: His attitude with the living beings - the humans, the jinn, and the animals-:
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) made me ride behind him one day and confided something to me which I shall never disclose to anyone. What he (ﷺ) liked most to screen himself from others while answering the call of nature was the "Hadaf" (an elevation) or "Hā’ish Nakhl" (a date-palm orchard) [177]. Once he entered an orchard belonging to an Ansāri man and found a camel therein. When it saw him, it began to groan, and its eyes shed tears. The Prophet (ﷺ) approached it and patted it on the head and behind its ears until it calmed down. Then, he asked: 'Who is the owner of this camel?' An Ansāri youth came and said: 'It is mine, O Messenger of Allah.' He (ﷺ) said: 'Do you not fear Allah regarding this animal which Allah has placed in your possession? It is complaining to me that you starve it and put it to toil.'" [Partly narrated by Muslim and the rest of it meets his conditions, also narrated by Abu Dāwūd and others]. Hadaf: an elevation like a building and the like, and every elevation is called "hadaf". "Hā’ish an-Nakhl": a group of intertwining palm trees, i.e., an orchard. See: Ikmāl Al-Mu‘lim bi Fawā’id Muslim (2/192), Kashf Al-Mushkil Min As-Sahīhayn (11/4-12), and Sharh Sahīh Muslim by An-Nawawi (4/35). Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (342) and Abu Dāwūd in his "Sunan Collection" no. (2549).
Abu Dāwūd at-Tayālisi narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ūd that he said: "We were on a journey with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and a man entered a thicket (to relieve himself) and brought out of a it a bird's egg. The bird kept fluttering above the head of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and his Companions'. So, he said: 'Who has distressed this?' A man said: 'I took its egg.' So, he (ﷺ) said: 'Return it back out of mercy towards it.'" [179] Narrated by At-Tayālisi in his "Musnad Collection" no. (334).
Al-Hākim narrated in his "Sahīh Collection" on the authority of Safīnah, the servant of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), that he said: "I was traveling by sea on a ship when the ship was wrecked. I climbed onto one of its panels that threw me in a jungle where there was a lion. The lion came to me, so I said: 'O Abu al-Hārith (an epithet for a lion), I am the servant of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).' The lion, thus, lowered its head and pushed me with its shoulder. It kept pushing and guiding me through the way until we reached the roadside. After putting me on the roadside, it roared so I thought it was bidding me farewell." [180] Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4258).
Ad-Dārimi narrated the following on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās: "A woman brought her son to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, my son is possessed, and it (the jinni) takes control of him at our lunch and dinner time and, thus, ruins them for us.' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wiped over his chest and made a supplication. So, he coughed vomiting something like a black puppy out of his abdomen and he was then cured." [181] Narrated by Ad-Dārimi in his "Musnad Collection" no. (19) and Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (2165).
Imam Ahmad and Abu Ya‘la al-Mūsili narrated on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah that she said: "The household of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had a Wahsh (wild animal) [180]. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) went out, it would start playing violently and running to and fro. On sensing that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) entered, it would sit down without making any move, fearing that it would hurt him." [183] At-Tahāwi mentioned that the people of Madīnah used to keep wild animals and lock them up. See: Sharh Ma‘āni Al-Āthār (4/195). Al-Jawhari mentioned that "wahsh" means wild animal. See: As-Sihāh (3/1024). Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (25808) and Abu Ya‘la in his "Musnad Collection" no. (4441).
The Fourth Type: His influence on trees and wood:
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Jābir ibn ‘Abdullah reported: "The roof of the mosque was built over trunks of date palms (as pillars). When delivering a sermon, the Prophet (ﷺ) used to stand by one of those trunks. When the pulpit was made and he was using it instead, we heard the trunk making a sound like that of a pregnant she-camel until the Prophet (ﷺ) came to it and put his hand over it, then it became quiet." [184] Another narration reads: "So, the date palm tree cried like a baby." [185] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3585). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his Sahīh Collection" no. (3584).
In another Hadīth in "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Jābir said: "We were walking with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) until we stopped at a wide valley. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) went to answer the call of nature and I followed him with a small container filled with water. He (ﷺ) looked around but could not find anything to take as a screen. He then saw two trees at the side of the valley. So, he (ﷺ) went towards one of them and caught hold of two of its branches and said: 'Obey me by the permission of Allah.' So, it obeyed him like an obedient camel being led by its reins. Then, he went to the other tree and caught hold of one of its branches and said: 'Obey me by the permission of Allah,' and it did. When he was in the middle between them, he brought them together until they were joined together, and he said: 'Join together over me by Allah's permission,' and so they joined together over him (forming a screen). I went far for fear that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would feel me approaching and would thus go away. I sat talking to myself and then had a quick glance and saw the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) coming while the two trees were set apart with each of them standing apart in its place," and he mentioned the rest of the Hadīth. [186] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3014).
Ad-Dārimi narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that he said: "We were on a journey with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and there came a Bedouin. On approaching the Prophet (ﷺ), he said to him: 'What is your destination.' The Bedouin replied: 'I am heading to my family.' He (ﷺ) said: 'Would you like to do something good?' He said: 'What is it?' He (ﷺ) said: 'To testify that there is no god, but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and messenger.' The Bedouin said: 'Who bears witness to what you are saying?' He (ﷺ) said: 'This tree.' The Prophet (ﷺ), then called it while it was at the side of the valley, and it proceeded forward while splitting the ground until it stood before him. He asked her to bear witness thrice, and it bore witness thrice that he was what he said he was, then it returned to its original place. The Bedouin came back to him and said: 'If they followed me, I would bring them to you, or else I would return to be with you.'" [187] Narrated by Ad-Dārimi in his "Musnad Collection" no. (16).
In At-Tirmidhi's Collection, ‘Ali reported: "I was with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in Makkah. Then, we headed towards some of its suburbs, and he met no tree or mountain (on his way) except that it said to him: Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah." [Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Sahīh Collection"] [188]. Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4261) and At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3626).
The Fifth Type: The water, food, and fruits that would become exceptionally abundant due to his blessing:
This is a broad topic, and we shall mention here part of it.
As for the water:
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Anas reported: "I saw the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) when the time for ‘Asr prayer had come. The people looked for water (for ablution), but they could not find any. Then some water (for ablution) was brought to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He put his hand in that vessel and ordered the people to perform ablution therefrom, and I saw water springing from beneath his fingers, so the people performed ablution until all of them performed ablution." [189] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (169) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2279).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Jābir reported: "I was with the Prophet (ﷺ) and the time for the ‘Asr prayer became due. We had no water with us except a little which was put in a vessel and was brought to the Prophet (ﷺ). He put his hand into it and spread out his fingers and then said: 'Come along to perform ablution, and the blessing is from Allah.' I saw the water gushing forth from between his fingers. So, the people performed ablution and drank, and I tried to drink more of that water (beyond my thirst and capacity), for I knew that it was a blessing." The sub-narrator said: "I asked Jābir: 'How many were you then?' He replied: 'We were one-thousand four hundred.'" [190] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (5639), and I did not find it in "Sahīh Muslim Collection".
In "Sahīh Al-Bukhāri Collection", Jābir also reported: "The people became very thirsty on the Day of Hudaybiyah (Treaty). A small pot containing some water was in front of the Prophet (ﷺ) and when he had finished the ablution, the people rushed towards him. He asked: 'What is wrong with you?' They replied: 'We have no water either for performing ablution or for drinking except what is in front of you.' So, he placed his hand in that pot and the water started flowing from between his fingers like springs. We all drank and performed ablution (from it)." I asked Jābir: "How many were you?" he replied: "Even if we had been one hundred thousand, it would have been sufficient for us, but we were fifteen hundred." [191] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3576).
As for making food abundant:
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Jābir reported: "When the trench was being dug, I noticed signs of hunger on the Prophet (ﷺ). I went to my wife and said to her: 'Do you have anything? I have seen signs of severe hunger on the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).' She brought out a bag that contained a Sā‘ of barley. We had a goat that was reared at home. I slaughtered it, and she ground the flour (to bake bread). I then cut the meat and put it in the cooking pot. When I was about to go back to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) my wife said to me: 'Do not embarrass me before the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and his Companions (i.e. do not invite too many people as the food is little).' When I reached him, I said to him in a low tone: 'O Messenger of Allah, we have slaughtered a small animal and have ground a Sā‘ of barley. Please accompany me with a few of your Companions.' Thereupon, the Prophet (ﷺ) announced in a loud voice: 'O people of the trench, Jābir has prepared a feast for you, so all of you are welcome.' Then he told me: 'Do not take the pot off the fire, nor bake the dough until I arrive.' So, I went home, and the Prophet (ﷺ) came ahead of the people. My wife told me off, but I replied: 'I did exactly what you told me to do.'
She brought out the dough, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) spat into it and invoked the blessing of Allah on it, and then he spat into the cooking pot and invoked the blessing of Allah on it. Then, he said (to my wife): 'Call another woman to help bake bread with you and take (meat) out from your cooking pot, but do not take it off the fire.' There were about one thousand guests. By Allah, all of them ate until they left the food and went off while our cooking pot was still full of meat as before and the dough was being baked as before." [192] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4102) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2039).
As for the fruits:
In "Sahīh Al-Bukhāri Collection", Jābir ibn ‘Abdullah reported: "My father was martyred leaving an unsettled debt and six daughters. When the time of plucking the date palms came, I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: 'You know that my father was martyred on the Day of ’Uhud and left many unsettled debts, and I wish that the creditors would see you.'
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Go and collect the various types of dates and place them separately in heaps.' So, I did that and then I called him.
On seeing him, the creditors started claiming their rights aggressively at that time. When the Prophet (ﷺ) saw how they behaved, he went round the biggest heap three times and sat over it and said: 'Call your companions (i.e., the creditors).' Then, he kept on measuring and giving them, until Allah cleared all my father's debts. It would have pleased me that Allah would clear the debts of my father even though I had not taken a single date to my sisters. But all the heaps were complete (as they were) and I looked at the heap where the Prophet (ﷺ) was sitting and noticed as if not a single date had been taken thereof." [193] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2781).
Imam Ahmad and At-Tirmidhi narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that he said: "I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) with some dates and said: 'Invoke Allah to bless them for me.' So, he took them between his two hands, then supplicated and said to me: 'Take them and put them in this bag of yours and (whenever you intend to take any from it, then) put your hand in it and do not scatter them all about.' So, I carried such-and-such Wasaq of those dates in the cause of Allah. We used to eat from it and give others to eat, and it (the bag) would not part from my waist until the day ‘Uthmān was killed, as it was torn away from my waist and fell." [194] Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (8748) and At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3839).
Imam Ahmad narrated in his "Musnad Collection" on the authority of Dukayn ibn Sa‘īd al-Muzani that he said: "We were four hundred and forty and we went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) asking him for food. So, he said to ‘Umar: 'Go and give them.' ‘Umar said: 'O Messenger of Allah, only Sā‘s of dates are left and I cannot see anything else.' He (ﷺ) said: 'Go and give them.' ‘Umar replied: 'I hear and obey.'
‘Umar took out a key from his waist belt and opened the door and there was a heap of dates like a sitting calf (baby camel). He said to us: 'Take (from it).' Each one of us took as much as he wished, then I looked back, as I was one of the last among them, and it seemed as if we had not taken a single date." [195] Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (17851).
The Sixth Type: His influence on and his attitude toward the rocks and their subjugation to him:
In "Sahīh Al-Bukhāri Collection", Anas reported: "The Prophet (ﷺ) mounted ’Uhud along with Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān. The mountain shook, so the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Be quiet - striking it with his foot - for there is none (standing) on you except a prophet, a man of truth, and two martyrs.'" [196] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3699).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Jābir ibn Samurah reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, I recognize a rock in Makkah that used to greet me before the beginning of my mission. Indeed, I can recognize it even now." [197] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2277). Al-Ishbīli mentioned that Al-Bukhāri did not narrate this Hadīth. See: Al-Jam‘ Bayn As-Sahīhayn by Al-Ishbīli (3/419).
In At-Tirmidhi's Collection, ‘Ali reported: "I was with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in Makkah. Then, we headed towards some of its suburbs, and he met no tree or mountain (on his way) except that it said to him: Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah." [198] Narrated by At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3626) and Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4261).
The Seventh Type: Allah's support for him with His angels:
Allah Almighty says: {[Remember] when you were seeking help of your Lord [at Badr] and He responded to you, “I will reinforce you with a thousand angels, following one another in succession.”} [Surat al-Anfāl: 9]
He Almighty also says: {[Remember] when you said to the believers, “Will it not suffice you that your Lord will help you by sending down three thousand angels?” Yes, if you stay patient and fear Allah, and the enemy should launch a surprise attack on you, your Lord will help you with five thousand marked angels.} [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 124-125]
In the two "Sahīh Collections" - and it is the wording of Muslim - Ibn ‘Abbās reported that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb said: "On the Day of Badr, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) looked at the polytheists, who were one thousand (fighters), while his Companions were three hundred and seventeen. So, he (ﷺ) turned towards the Qiblah (the direction of Ka‘bah), stretched his hands up, and started calling upon his Lord: 'O Allah, fulfill for me what You have promised me. O Allah, accomplish what You have promised me. O Allah, if this small group of Muslims is destroyed, You will not be worshiped on earth.' He continued his supplication to his Lord while raising his hands and facing the Qiblah until his mantle slipped down from his shoulders. So, Abu Bakr came to him, picked up his mantle, and put it back on his shoulders. Then, he embraced him from behind and said: 'O Prophet of Allah, you have sufficiently prayed to your Lord, and He will fulfill for you what He has promised you.' So, Allah Almighty revealed: {[Remember] when you were seeking help of your Lord [at Badr] and He responded to you, “I will reinforce you with a thousand angels, following one another in succession.”} And Allah reinforced him with the angels."
Abu Zumayl said: Ibn ‘Abbās said to me: "On that day, a Muslim man was chasing a polytheist who was running in front of him when he heard the sound of a whip from above, and the voice of a rider, saying: 'Go ahead, Hayzūm.' He glanced at the polytheist, who had (then) fallen on his back. When he looked at him, there was a scar on his nose, and his face was torn as if it had been lashed with a whip, and it all turned green.
The Ansāri (man from the Ansār) came and related this incident to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), who said: 'You have told the truth. This was help from the third heaven.' On that day, they killed seventy (polytheists) and captured seventy." [199] And he mentioned the rest of the Hadīth. Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1763).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqās reported: "On the Day of ’Uhud, I saw two men wearing white clothes on the right and on the left of the Prophet (ﷺ) and they were defending him vigorously. I have never seen them before or after that day." [200] i.e., Gabriel and Michael (peace be upon them). Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (4054) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2306).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", ‘Ā’ishah reported: "Sa‘d was injured on the Day of the Trench by the arrow of a man from the Quraysh - Ibn al-‘Ariqah - who shot him in the median vein of the arm. So, the Prophet (ﷺ) set up a tent for him in the mosque to visit him from nearby. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) returned from the trench, placed down his weapon, and washed up, Gabriel (peace be upon him) came to him while he was shaking the dust from his head and said: 'Have you put down your weapon?! By Allah, I have not put it down. Go out to them.' The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Where?' He pointed to Banu Qurayzhah. So, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) fought against them, and they surrendered to him. He (ﷺ) turned the judgment over to Sa‘d, and Sa‘d said: 'I judge that their warriors be killed, their women and offspring be taken as captives, and that their wealth be divided.'" [201] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no.(4122) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1769).
Some narrations of Al-Bukhāri read: "Gabriel came to him while his head was covered with dust." [202] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2813).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", ‘Ā’ishah reported that she said to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): "'Have you ever experienced a day harder than the day of (the battle of) ’Uhud?' He replied: 'Indeed, I have suffered a lot at the hands of your people, the harshest of which was what they did to me on the Day of ‘Aqabah when I went to Ibn ‘Abd Yalīl ibn ‘Abd Kulāl with the purpose of inviting him to Islam, but he made no response (to my call). So, I departed with deep distress (to the point that I did not know where I was heading). I did not recover until I arrived at Qarn ath-Tha‘ālib. There, I raised my head and saw a cloud shading me. I looked and I saw in it Gabriel who called me and said: "Indeed, Allah heard what your people had said to you and the response they had given you. He has sent to you the angel in charge of the mountains to order him to do whatever you wish concerning them."
Then, the angel of the mountains called me, greeted me, and said: "O Muhammad, Allah has listened to what your people had said to you and the response they had given you. I am the angel of mountains, and your Lord has sent me to you so that you may give me your orders concerning them. If you wish, I will bring together the Akhshabayn (two mountains that stand opposite to each other at the outskirts of Makkah) to crush them in between."'
The Messenger of Allah (ﷻ) said: 'Rather, I wish that Allah would bring from their offspring those who worship Allah alone and associate nothing with Him.'" [203] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his 'Sahīh Collection" no. (3231) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1795).
The Eighth type: The way Allah sufficed him against his enemies and protected him from people:
This represents a sign of his prophethood from a number of aspects, which are:
It confirms Allah's words, as He says: {Then proclaim what you are commanded and turn away from those who associate partners with Allah. We will surely suffice you against the mockers, those who set up besides Allah another god; they will come to know.} [Surat al-Hijr: 94-96] This is a report from Allah that He would grant him sufficiency against the polytheistic mockers.
Allah also informed that He would grant him sufficiency against the People of the Book, as He says: {Say [O believers], “We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us; and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the descendants [of Jacob]; and what was given to Moses and Jesus; and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted.” If they believe as you have believed, then they are guided. But if they turn away, then they are in plain dissension. Allah will suffice you against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.} [Surat al-Baqarah: 136-137] So, Allah Almighty informed him that He would suffice him against those who oppose him from the People of the Book.
Allah Almighty also informed him that He would protect him from all people, as He says: {O Messenger, convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not do that, then you have not conveyed His message. Allah will protect you from the people.} [Surat al-Mā’idah: 67] This is a general report that Allah would protect him from all people.
Each of these three general reports occurred just as Allah reported.
Some scholars mentioned the names of some of those mockers whom Allah sufficed him against. They were known and famous to the Companions for their power and grandeur in life. This is why they mentioned them to make known such a great honor that Allah bestowed on His Prophet.
In "Sahīh Muslim Collection", Abu Hurayrah reported: "Abu Jahl asked (the people of Makkah): 'Does Muhammad place his face on the ground in your presence?' It was said to him: 'Yes.' He said: 'By Al-Lāt and Al-‘Uzza, If I were to see him doing that, I would trample his neck.' Suddenly, they saw him turning upon his heels and trying to ward off something with his hands. It was said to him: 'What is wrong with you?' He said: 'There is a ditch of fire and horror and wings between me and him.' Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'If he had come near me, the angels would have torn him to pieces.' Then Allah Almighty revealed: {Have you seen the one who prevents a slave [of Allah] from praying? What if this [slave] is rightly guided, and enjoins righteousness? How about the one who denies and turns away? Does he not know that Allah is watching all? No indeed; if he does not desist, We will surely drag him by the forelock – a lying, sinful forelock. So let him call his associates; We will call the wardens of Hellfire. No indeed; do not obey him, but prostrate and draw near [to Allah].}" [204] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2797).
In "Sahīh Al-Hākim Collection", ‘Abdur-Rahmān ibn Abi Bakr as-Saiddīq reported: "So-and-so was sitting with the Prophet (ﷺ), and whenever the Prophet (ﷺ) spoke, he would make a gesture with his face [205]. So, the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him: 'May you be like this (all the time)", and he kept making this facial gesture until he died." [206] i.e., He would move his lips and chin satirically mimicking the Prophet (ﷺ). See: Al-Majmū‘ Al-Mughīth Fi Gharībayy Al-Qur’ān Wa Al-Hadīth (2/604) and An-Nihāyah Fi Gharīb Al-Hadīth Wa Al-Athar (2/60). Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4264).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Anas ibn Mālik reported: "A Christian man embraced Islam and recited Surat al-Baqarah and Surat Āl ‘Imrān. He used to write for the Prophet (ﷺ). Then, he reverted to Christianity and used to say: 'Muhammad does not know except that which I wrote for him.' So, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'O Allah, make him a sign.' Allah, then caused him to die and in the morning the earth threw him out. They said: 'This must have been done by Muhammad and his Companions. When he escaped from them, they dug him up and threw him.' So, they dug as deep as they could (to bury him), but in the morning the earth threw him out again. They said the same thing they had said the first time. Then, they dug as deep as they could (to bury him), but it (the earth) threw him out the third time. Thus, they knew that this was not something done by people, and they left him unburied." [207] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3617) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2781).
Among the incidents that are well-known to the biographers and others is the Prophet's supplication against ‘Utaybah ibn Abi Lahab. When Abu Lahab showed hostility against the Prophet (ﷺ), he ordered his two sons to divorce the Prophet's daughters: Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthūm, before consummating marriage with them. ‘Utaybah said to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): "'I disbelieve in your religion, and I have parted with your daughter. You do not love me, and I do not love you.' Then, he started abusing him and tore his shirt. So, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'O Allah, empower one of Your dogs against him.'
He then set out on a journey with a group of men from the Quraysh until they stopped at night at a place in the Levant called Az-Zarqā’. On that night, a lion roamed around them and ‘Utaybah kept saying: 'Woe to my brother! By Allah, it will eat me as Muhammad supplicated against me. He killed me while he is in Makkah, and I am in the Levant.' Then, the lion attacked him only among all other people and caught his head and killed him." [208] Narrated by Abu Nu‘aym in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah (p. 454) and Al-Bayhaqi in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah (2/338-339).
This also includes what people still see and hear about Allah's distinct types of retribution against those who insult him and dispraise him and his religion. There are too many stories in this regard that we cannot mention here in detail. We have seen and heard a lot, which needs a long time to recount, about how Allah inflicts various types of unusual punishments upon those who abuse him (ﷺ). In fact, this proves how Allah guards his honor, supports him, holds him in high esteem, and raises his reputation high. All people are aware of some incidents in this regard that serve as lessons for those of understanding.
It is a well-known and a tried-and-true fact that when the Muslim soldiers besieged some of the forts of the People of the Book in the Levant, it would be difficult for them to open it and the siege would last long until the enemy reviled the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), at which point the Muslims would start feeling optimistic about conquering the fort and witnessing Allah's retribution against their enemy that would occur soon. Muslims have already tried this more than once in fulfillment of Allah's words: {Indeed, the one who hates you is truly cut off [from all goodness].} [Surat al-Kawthar: 3] And when Khosrau tore his message, Allah Almighty tore up their kingdoms, but when Heraclius and Al-Muqawqis honored his message, they were left to keep their sovereignty.
The Ninth Type: Having his supplications answered:
Answering the supplication may refer to the manner that many people are familiar with like being granted sufficiency, well-being and the like. It may also refer to the fulfillment of supplication when something extraordinary is requested like making the food and drink exceptionally abundant, the date palms providing fruits twice a year instead of once, restoring the sight to a blind person, etc. It also includes his supplication against the chiefs of the Quraysh who were, thus, killed on the Day of Badr and were dumped in Al-Qalīb (the ditch).
Another example is his supplication against ‘Utaybah ibn Abi Lahab,
and his supplication against the one who attributed lies to him by asking Allah to make a lesson of him.
One more example is his supplication when the food became scarce and they collected it on a Nita‘ [209] and Allah, consequently, made it abundant, by the blessing of his supplication, until it sufficed the huge army during the Battle of Tabūk. Nita‘ means: a leather mat. See: Al-‘Ayn (2/16) and Al-Qāmūs Al-Muhīt (1/767).
Another example is his supplication during the Battle of the Trench that resulted in making the food, which was only one Sā‘ (around 2.5 kg) of barley, sufficient for one thousand persons.
Another example is when the Hudaybiyah Well ran dry and his supplication caused the water to be abundant in such a manner that sufficed the whole caravan - one thousand and five hundred - along with their mounts.
Allah Almighty said to him on the Day of Badr: {[Remember] when you were seeking help of your Lord [at Badr] and He responded to you, “I will reinforce you with a thousand angels, following one another in succession.”} [Surat al-Anfāl: 9] Besides other similar examples.
In the two "Sahīh Collections", the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "I asked my Lord three things, and He granted me two but withheld one: I beseeched Him not to destroy my Ummah by famine and He granted me this; I beseeched Him not to grant an enemy from outside them power against them to overcome them and He granted me this; I beseeched Him not to let them fight one another but He withheld this from me." [210] "So, bloodshed will continue among you until the Day of Judgment." [211] Narrated by Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2890). It was said by Ibn ‘Umar; narrated by Mālik in his "Muwatta’ Collection" no. (35) and Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (24246).
In the two "Sahīh Collections", Anas ibn Mālik reported: "’Umm Sulaym said: 'O Messenger of Allah, Anas is your servant, so supplicate to Allah for him.' He (ﷺ) said: 'O Allah, increase his wealth and offspring and bless for him whatever You gave him.'" [212] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (6334) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (2480).
Al-Bukhari also narrated: "The Prophet (ﷺ) paid a visit to Umm Sulaym and she brought him dates and ghee. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Return your ghee and dates in their respective containers.' Then, he stood somewhere in her house and offered a voluntary prayer and supplicated for ’Umm Sulaym and her family. Then, ’Umm Sulaym said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I have a special request.' He said: 'What is it?' She replied: '(Please supplicate for) your servant Anas.' So, he (ﷺ) did not leave anything good in the world or the Hereafter which he did not invoke (Allah to bestow) for him and said: 'O Allah, give him (i.e., Anas) wealth and children and bless them for him.' Verily, I became one of the richest among the Ansār and my daughter ’Umaynah told me that more than one hundred and twenty of my offspring had been buried before Al-Hajjāj came to Basra." [213] Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1982).
Al-Hākim narrated in his "Sahīh Collection" on the authority of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "l fell sick and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came to visit me when I was saying: 'O Allah, if my time has come to an end, then bestow upon me relief; if it has not yet come, then raise me in status; and if this is a trial, then grant me patience.' He (ﷺ) said: 'O Allah, heal him, O Allah, grant him well-being.' Then, he (ﷺ) said: 'Get up.' So, I got up and I never suffered that pain again." [214] Narrated by Al-Hākim in his "Mustadrak Collection" no. (4262).
Abu Zayd ‘Amr ibn Akhtab al-Ansāri reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him: "Come closer," then, he (ﷺ) wiped over my head and beard with his hand and said: "O Allah, make him beautiful and make his beauty last long."
The one narrating on his authority said: "He turned eighty and something and only a few grey hairs were visible in his beard, and he was cheerful, and his face remained wrinkle-free until he died." Narrated by Imam Ahmad; Al-Bayhaqi said its Isnād is authentic [215] Narrated by Ahmad in his "Musnad Collection" no. (21064) and Al-Bayhaqi in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah (6/210).
At-Tirmidhi also narrated this Hadīth adding: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wiped with his hand over my face and supplicated for me." ‘Azrah said: "He lived one hundred and twenty years and had only a few grey hairs on his head." [216] At-Tirmidhi said: It is a Hasan (sound) Hadīth. Narrated by At-Tirmidhi in his "Jāmi‘ Collection" no. (3629).
[Signs of Prophethood that Provide Indubitable Knowledge]
Such reports include:
What is mentioned in the Qur’an.
What is mass transmitted and known to the commoners and the elites, like the springing of water from between his fingers, making the food abundant, the yearning of the trunk, etc. Each of these incidents was known through extensive mass-transmitted reports and was communicated throughout the Ummah one generation after another with the successors reporting it from their predecessors. These signs are transmitted, famous and extensive among all the categories of the Ummah. They are communicated by people more than those who report much of the Qur’an. They were heard and reported by people from the Ummah more than those who heard and reported many of the Qur’anic verses, and more than those who heard and reported that he (ﷺ) used to perform the two prostrations of forgetfulness, and more than those who heard and reported the Nisāb (the minimum amount liable for Zakah) and the obligations of Zakah; even the times of prayer and its numbers have become widely reported only because it is continuously practiced.
As for these signs, people reported them more than those people who reported the times of prayer in terms of the specific reports. This is because many of the Prophet's signs occurred in the presence of numerous people who witnessed such signs. An example is when the people of Hudaybiyyah - who were one thousand and five hundred - watched the water springing from between his fingers, in addition to the emergence of abundant water from the Hudaybiyyah Well after they had caused it to run dry leaving no drop of water therein, and it became abundant and quenched the soldiers' thirst.
Another example is when the soldiers in the battle of Dhāt ar-Riqā‘ witnessed how Jābir poured a small amount of water into a large bowl, and it became full and all the soldiers were able to fill their containers.
Another example is when the army saw, on their way back from the battle of Khaybar, two bags of water with a woman and they filled every single container with them and drank from such water and these bags remained full as they were.
One more example is when the people of Khaybar - who were one thousand and five hundred - saw how the whole army ate their fill of the food, which was as small as the space occupied by a sheep lying down.
Another example is when the great army - around thirty thousand - during the battle of Tabūk saw how the small amount of water in the spring increased until it sufficed them, and they also witnessed how the food that they gathered on a leather mat sufficed them.
Moreover, the people of the Trench - who were more than one thousand - witnessed the abundance of food in the house of Jābir after it was only one Sā‘ of barley and a small goat. They all ate their fill after being hungry and there still remained food.
Another example is when the three hundred people witnessed the abundance of water when performing ablution from a cup while the water was springing from between his (ﷺ) fingers, and it sufficed them to perform ablution.
There is also the incident when all the people of Suffah drank from a small amount of milk, and it sufficed them and there still remained more.
They used to pass this on among them, which was common as some of those who witnessed it would pass it on to those who did not. Whoever reflects on how such signs were transmitted would realize that they were famous at all times. The prevalence of such reports is far greater than the fame of what is transmitted in relation to the prophets' signs and the news of kings and countries, which are normally transmitted with great motivation and zeal.
The occurrence of such signs is well-known among the Ummah, its commoners and elites, the transmitters of such signs from among the reliable scholars, the books of Hadīth and Tafsīr (commentary on the Qur’an), the books on the Prophet's military expeditions and on biographies. This is in addition to the books on the fundamentals of Islam and on Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) containing reports that are more reliable in transmitting such reports, according to the consensus of the rational people and scholars, than the books on history that are incompletely transmitted, as many of its reports have an interrupted Isnād (chain of narrators) and contain countless lies, although the original story could be mass transmitted.
Many of the likes of such signs are famous among the Ummah, the likes of which are mass-transmitted among the commoners, and many of those that are individually reported are mass-transmitted among the elites from the scholars. These are the two ways for confirming such signs: general mass transmission and private mass transmission.
The third Way: The abstract mass transmission, which is unanimously known to most people. People may hear different reports about stories that share one thing in common, as they heard different reports indicating the bravery of ‘Antarah, Khālid ibn al-Walīd and their likes. This includes other reports indicating the generosity of Hātim, Ma‘an ibn Zā’idah and their likes. Furthermore, the reports of others indicate the tolerance of Al-Ahnaf ibn Qays, Mu‘āwiyah ibn Sufyān and their likes. Moreover, other reports including the poetry of Imru’ al-Qays, An-Nābighah, Labīd and their likes from among the early poets, and the poetry of Al-Farazdaq, Jarīr, ‘Umar ibn Abi Rabī‘ah and their likes from among the Muwalladīn poets, and the poetry of Abu Nuwās, Al-Mutanabbi, Abu Tammām, and their likes from among the insightful poets. People also heard different sayings and Fatwas indicating the knowledge of Mālik, Ath-Thawri, Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, Abu Hanīfah, Ash-Shāfi‘i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Is'hāq ibn Rāhawayh, and other scholars.
They also heard different reports indicating the justice and the good reputation of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azīz and other rulers.
And they heard different reports indicating the asceticism of Al-Hasan al-Basri, ‘Āmir ibn ‘Abdullah al-Qaysi, Mālik ibn Dīnār, Al-Fudayl ibn ‘Iyād, Ibrāhīm ibn Ad'ham, and others from the ascetics.
They also heard different reports indicating that Hippocrates, Galen, and others were known for their knowledge of medicine. So, the sum of these reports leads to indubitable knowledge that such a person possesses such traits, even if each of these reports alone does not result in knowledge, and even if each of the stories alone is not mass-transmitted.
This also includes the unquestionable knowledge of faith and death and similar things occurring frequently in such a manner that entails unquestionable knowledge. Examples include people's knowledge that Khadījah, ‘Ā’ishah and others are from the Mothers of the Believers, that Fātimah and Zaynab are daughters of the Prophet (ﷺ), that ‘Ā’ishah is the daughter of Abu Bakr, that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān assumed the caliphate after him, and that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were buried in his room.
Knowing this, it becomes clear that such Hadīths - and many more like them - are many more than those Hadīths reported from each of them; and their transmitters are greater, more numerous, and better than the transmitters of their reports. They all indicate that outstanding signs and great miracles used to occur at the hands of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah the like of which has never been known to occur at the hands of anyone else.
The fourth Way: We say: These signs, some of which we mentioned, occurred in the presence of numerous people like the incident of making the food abundant on the Day of the Trench, as the people of the Trench, both their men and women, were thousands. The same applies to the incident of the water springing from between his fingers and the water overflowing from the well on the Day of Hudaybiyah, as they were at that time one thousand and five hundred and they were all righteous and from among the people of Paradise. None among them was known for deliberately attributing a single lie to the Prophet (ﷺ).
Similarly, they were numerous at the time of making the water and food abundant during the battle of Khaybar, and in Tabūk there were thousands and thousands. Some of those who witnessed such incidents used to report these signs in the presence of others who witnessed them and used to report them to peoples, who would report them to others, and the reports would confirm each other, and they would narrate the same incident without mutual collaborating or feigning knowledge. The least important case would be to acknowledge such a report without blaming them for narrating it.
We know, by virtue of the natural habit that Allah Almighty has instilled in His slaves, by virtue of the predecessors' adherence to and keenness of being truthful and their belief that truthfulness is obligatory, and by virtue of their great cautiousness not to attribute lies to their Prophet and honoring this, that it was mass-transmitted from him, according to them, that he (ﷺ) said: "Whoever tells lies about me intentionally should prepare his place in Hellfire." [217] So, we know that they would not approve of anyone they know to be telling lies about him. And whoever would report about him that which they witnessed and would be telling lies about him, they would know that he was telling lies about him. Since they agreed on approving this and on circulating it among them - without anyone disapproving of this - then, it is known for certain that they agreed on reporting this just as they agreed on reporting the Qur’an and what is mass-transmitted of the Sharia, even though the majority of them were not engaged in teaching the Qur’an; rather, one would teach and another would listen from the one being taught without disapproving of one another's recitation. One would teach another that the Zhuhr prayer in residence is four Rak‘ahs (unit of prayer), the Maghrib is three Rak‘ahs, and the Fajr is two Rak‘ahs, and this one would approve of what that one said. Since they approved of one another concerning the act of reporting this, it became known that they agreed on reporting this, which is the highest level of mass transmission. Narrated by Al-Bukhāri in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (1291) and Muslim in his "Sahīh Collection" no. (3).
The fifth Way: We say: All types of scholars have what is sufficient of such mass-transmitted signs. The books of Tafsīr are loaded with the mention of such signs, which are mass transmitted therein, and the same applies to the books of Hadīth. Also, the books of biographies, military expeditions, and history are loaded with the mention of such signs, which are mass transmitted therein. The books of Fiqh too are loaded with the mention of such signs, which are mass transmitted therein, although this is not the objective of these types of books; rather, the rulings represent their main focus. However, during narrating the rulings, they narrate what they believe to be mass transmitted of such signs. Moreover, the books on the fundamentals of Fiqh and scholastic theology are loaded with the mention of such signs, which are mass transmitted therein.
The transmission of each of these scholars' categories indicates indubitable knowledge, so how about what is transmitted within all these categories?!
This way and others, like the way of acknowledgment and confirmation, the way of abstract mass transmission, and the way how the Hadīth scholars and other scholars believe in them, and others, prove the following:
- The mass transmission of the general category of supernatural signs occurs the least.
- The mass transmission of each specific category thereof, like the mass transmission of making food abundant and the mass transmission of making water abundant.
- The mass transmission of each genre thereof, like the mass transmission of the springing of water from between his fingers and the mass transmission of making numerous people eat their fill from a small amount of food.
- The mass transmission of each individual case thereof, like the mass transmission of the yearning of the trunk and the like.
The more one reflects deeply on this and considers other similar examples and gives it its due thought and inference, the more knowledgeable and certain he becomes about this, and it becomes clear to him that knowing this is more prevalent than any other knowledge pursued through mass-transmitted reports. There is no knowledge pursued through mass-transmitted reports in the world except that the knowledge of the Prophet's signs and his religion's laws is more needed therefrom.
There is no knowledge about the conditions, sayings, acts, or biography of any of the prophets, kings, scholars and early Shaykhs except that knowledge about Muhammad's conditions is more widespread and manifest, and its transmission is more complete and perfect.
There is no mass-transmitted knowledge existing currently, like the knowledge about the remote countries, such as the knowledge of the people of the Levant about Iraq, Khorasan, India, China, and Al-Andalus; and the knowledge of the people of Khorasan about the Levant, Iraq, and Egypt; and the knowledge of the people of India about Iraq and the Levant. Besides other examples of the peoples' knowledge about each other's condition, except that one's knowledge about the Muslims' condition all around the globe and about their religion and what they report from their Prophet concerning his signs and legislations are more prevalent than his knowledge about all these things.
This clarifies the fact that nothing exists in the world that could be known through mass-transmitted reports except that the Prophet's miracles and legislations could be more greatly known through mass-transmitted reports in confirmation of Allah's words that read: {It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all religions, and sufficient is Allah as a Witness.} [Surat al-Fat'h: 28]
Its prevalence over all religions - through knowledge, irrefutable proof, and clarification - is only by what He manifests of His signs and proofs, and this could only be fulfilled by knowing what is reported from Muhammad (ﷺ) from among his signs, which are the proofs, and his legislations, which represent the indication meant by the proofs. Allah has made it prevalent over every religion in terms of knowledge, proof, and clarity and He has also made it prevalent over every religion in terms of power, victory, and support. Finally, no rational proof is used to prove a meaning except that the proofs of the Lord's signs are greater and more, and praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
The Sixth Way: Scholars authored many books on his miracles and proofs that are transmitted in the reports, and they singled out books for that purpose. Examples include: Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah by the Fiqh scholar and the Hāfizh (eminent Hadīth scholar) Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi. Preceded by Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah by Shayk and Hāfizh Abu Nu‘aym al-Asbahāni Preceded by Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah by the father of Shaykh Al-Asbahāni and by Abu Al-Qāsim At-Tabarāni Preceded by Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah by Imam Al-Hāfizh Abu Zur‘ah ar-Rāzi, and by Shaykh Musannif (author) Abu Bakr ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abi ad-Dunyā, and by Imam Abu Is'hāq Ibrāhīm al-Harbi, and by Musannif Al-Hāfizh Ja‘far al-Firyābi. Besides what was written by the knowledgeable Shaykh Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi in his book that is called "Al-Wafā’ Fi Fadā’il Al-Mustafa," and what was written by Al-Hāfizh Abu ‘Abdullah al-Maqdisi in Dalā’il An-Nubuwwah. All these and others mention what they mention, along with the known Isnāds (chains of narrators) and the various mass-transmitted ways.
These books contain many more Hadīths, which include signs of his prophethood and proofs of his message, than the reported Hadiths that are mass transmitted from him. Furthermore, there are many more Hadīths related to every type of his miracles than those Hadīths related to similar issues.
The main point here is that the mass transmission of the various types of his detailed miracles in the Hadīths is far greater than the mass transmission of many other issues that are considered to be mass transmitted by the Ummah or by its scholars or by the Hadīth scholars. Added to this are the miracles and proofs that are mentioned in the Qur’an and that were extensively studied by many Muslims, who mentioned their types and properties in detail somewhere else. They even estimated the number of miracles in the Qur’an by more than tens of thousands. In addition to these two, there are reports referring to him in the books of the People of the Book.
Apart from these three types, there are other things mentioned in his Sharia that he was sent with, besides the traits of his Ummah, and what results from knowing his biography, his morals, his traits, and his conditions. Added to all this are the support and honor that Allah bestows upon those who believe in Him and His punishment and retribution against those who disbelieve in Him, as He did with the previous prophets. In fact, enumerating all the signs of prophethood is something beyond human ability, and believing in him is an obligation upon every single person.
Related books
All books- The Prophecy of the Messiah (peace be upon him)5 languages
The Prophecy of the Messiah (peace be upon him)
Prof. Dr. Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālih as-Suhaym Former Professor of Creed at King Saud University, Riyadh. In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
- Selected Questions from the Dictionary of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Islam4 languages
Selected Questions from the Dictionary of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Islam
(Section on Muslims) Question No. 68 How can we reconcile the fact that Islam is the best religion with the fact that many Muslims are far from honesty and seriousness and are instead immersed in the paths of deception, bribery, and drug consumption? Answer: Significance/1
- The Merit of Islam11 languages
The Merit of Islam
Imām Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhāb Chapter: The obligation to embrace Islam. Allah Almighty says: {Anyone who seeks a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} [1] [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85] He Almighty also says: {This is My straight path; follow it and do not follow other ways, lest they lead you away from His way. This is what He commands you, so that you may become righteous.”} [2] [Surat al-An‘ām: 153] [2] [Surat al-An‘ām: 153] [1] [Surat Āl ‘Imrān: 85] Mujāhid said: "The phrase' other ways' refers to the religious…
- The Straight Path to the Truth6 languages
The Straight Path to the Truth
Prepared by the Academic department at the Islamic Content Service Association in Languages 1445 AH Introduction In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful