Christianity Explained To Muslims

www.muhammadanism.
org
February 20, 2005
CHRISTIANITY
EXPLAINED TO
MUSLIMS
A MANUAL
FOR CHRISTIAN WORKERS
By
L. BEVAN JONES, B.A., B.D.
of the
Baptist Missionary Society
Principal
The Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies,
Lahore.
Author of “The People of the Mosque”.
"Nothing after all tells in discussion but the positive truth we

elicit; the true idea, if we have it, pushes out the false one by
its own momentum, and, without open hostilities, reigns in its
stead.”
H. R. MACKINTOSH.
Y.M.C.A. PUBLISHING HOUSE

5 RUSSELL STREET, CALCUTTA
1938
TO
MY WIFE
KEEN COMPANION
IN
THE GREAT EMPLOY
CORRIGENDA
p. 7, 1. 9: for 'Baidhāwi' read ‘Baidāwi,' and so elsewhere.

p. 25, 1. 7: for 'contracted' read 'contradicted'.
p. 87, 1. 20: for 'Syrian' read 'Syriac'.
p. 129, 1. 9: after 'theft' add 'murder'.
p. 137, 1. 14: for 19: 10 read 91: 10.
p. 145, 4 lines from bottom: for 2 Pet. read 1 Pet.
p. 167, 1. 22: for 'Joseph' read 'Jesus'.
p. 213, 1. 18: for ‘Jesus' read ‘Joses'.
The corrigenda have been corrected

in the following text.
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ix
CHAPTER I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES 3
Support from the Qur’ān for the Scriptures—Meaning of "corruption" in the
Qur’ān—The text of Scripture not affected—Confirmation by a modern
Muslim—The situation in Muhammad's day—The charges explained—
Specious arguments of the Ahmadis—These accusations are opposed to reason
—And contradicted by fact—Nor has the Bible been abrogated—Ahmadi
views of abrogation—Does the Qur’ān contain all necessary teaching?
CHAPTER II. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 37

The Muslim point of view—The modern Muslim attitude to the Scriptures—
The Christian conception of God's method of Revelation.
CHAPTER III. THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 59

The influence of the Qur’ān—Origin and significance of the phrase "Son of
God"—The phrase predicates Deity—What then shall we say of the Sonship of
Jesus?—How could the Eternal God be in Jesus?—But why should God
become Incarnate? Divine in all His ways.
CHAPTER IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 85

Reference to the Trinity in the Qur’ān—Christians too believe in the Unity—
What support has the doctrine in Scripture?—The doctrine in relation to early
experience of the Christian revelation—Reason for formulating the doctrine.
viii CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER V. THE HISTORICITY OF THE CRUCIFIXION 99
The orthodox Muslim view: Jesus did not die—A modern rationalist
interpretation—The Cross of shame—The Cross still "a stumbling-block"—
How came Muhammad to make these statements?
CHAPTER VI. HOW CHRIST SAVES 125

Islamic views about God and man—Islamic teaching about sin—What the
Qur’ān says about fate and hell—The teaching of Islam about salvation—Con-
flicting views among Muslims—What is involved in salvation?—How does
Christ's Death affect the sinner?—God's chosen way—How Christ saves us.
CHAPTER VII. THE VIRGIN BIRTH 153

A changed attitude towards Christ—Orthodox and rationalist Muslims in
conflict—What of the silence of the New Testament?—Are the narratives
borrowed?
CHAPTER VIII. CHRIST'S MIRACLES 173

The testimony of the Qur’ān—Use of miracles by the Christian Church—
Recent changed outlook—The evidence of the Gospels.
CHAPTER IX. THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST 189

‘Isā declared to be "pure from sin"—Yet the Ahmadis impute sin to Jesus—
What is the evidence of the Gospels?—He knew no sin.
CHAPTER X. THE RESURRECTION 203

Wresting the meaning of the Gospels—Our evidence for the Resurrection—
The dramatic change in the disciples—What caused it?—Paul leaves us in no
doubt—The empty tomb—Triumphant Joy.
APPENDICES 217
INTRODUCTION
THOSE who seek to present the Christian message to Muslims frequently meet
with a rebuff. It does not take them long to discover that these people entertain certain
deep-seated prejudices about Christianity and are only too ready to state them. Rightly to
account for this we need in the first place to remind ourselves that Islam occupies a
position relative to Christianity that is not shared by the other world-religions, inasmuch
as it is subsequent to Christianity and was propagated in spite of and, to some extent, as a
protest against it.
It is well-known that Muhammad had a controversy not only with the Jews but
with the Christians of his day. That controversy is reflected in the pages of the Qur’ān,
and references to it abound from the earliest times. It is equally true to say that the
influence of that controversy, with the main features still preserved, has persisted down
the years, so that whenever and wherever close contacts are made between peoples of the
two faiths, it is apt to break out afresh.
Muslims so stress creed and dogma—"mere profession of Islam wards off hell-
fire"—that this characteristic prejudice can be shown to be directed against certain
doctrines of the Church rather than against the Christian message as such. And yet the
message itself is inevitably involved, for if, in order to placate Muslims, we were to
discard these doctrines we should most certainly attenuate the message.
The author himself is far from holding, however, that we should demand of any
one—least of all Muslims—an understanding of, and acquiescence in, particular dogmas
of the Church as a condition of Christian discipleship, or as necessary to faith in Christ as
Saviour; nevertheless, it can hardly be
x INTRODUCTION
denied that in the case of Muslims it is precisely this traditional prejudice which is one of
the stumbling-blocks in the way of their understanding and accepting Christ.
If that be so, then a two-fold obligation rests upon us: (a) we need to get down to
the root-cause of their prejudice, and (b) we should re-think—and if necessary restate—
our Christian beliefs so as to remove all possible cause of misunderstanding and offence.
But having done this we must be prepared to find that with many a Muslim the chief
stumbling-block is the familiar one of the offence of Christ Himself, i.e. the offence of
the Cross. That is something which only the grace of God can remove.
It may fairly be claimed by the writer that for many years he has diligently sought
a carefully-reasoned, sympathetic and kindly way of approach to Muslims in these
matters under dispute, and in fact the chapters that comprise this volume are the
expansion of lectures to students of the Henry Martyn School during the past eight years.1
The title of the book calls perhaps for a word of explanation. The chapters have
been written primarily with the Christian missionary and evangelist in view, and each
subject has been treated in such a way that Christians, meeting Muslim objections, may
the more readily perceive what lies behind those objections and be helped to present
Christianity in a more effective manner.2
Nevertheless the title is bound to suggest that it is meant also for Muslim readers,
and it will perhaps be read by some. In that case a second purpose of the author will be
fulfilled, and he would ask of such that they believe that he has
1
The gist of most of them will be found in The People of the Mosque, pp. 271-306.
2
As in the case of the author's earlier book, it is planned to translate this volume also into Urdu and
Bengali.
INTRODUCTION xi
earnestly sought to state the facts from the Muslim side as far as he himself knows them,
and that he has been careful to avoid the use of any expression which would give
unnecessary offence. On the contrary, the book is sent forth in the hope and with the
prayer that it may be used of God not only to bring about a better understanding between
peoples of the two faiths, but as a means of convincing many a Muslim of the Truth as it
is in Christ.
The decision to present the material under each section in the form here adopted
was only reached after consulting leading missionaries in the chief mission fields where
the Gospel is being proclaimed to Muslims. For more than thirty years an earlier manual,
Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, the work of the late Rev. W. St. Clair-Tisdall,
has proved a most valuable handbook, but it is no longer in print, nor can it be considered
as meeting the requirements of the times.1
That volume followed the plan of putting Muslim objections in the form of
question or statement, with answers from the Christian side, since the author considered
"it is absolutely necessary to be ready with a suitable reply to each and every-one of
these". Here, however, a list of typical objections faces the opening of each chapter, and
the reader is directed to the place in the book where material may be found suggesting
what one's attitude should be to particular criticisms.
An honoured friend of the writer, with long experience in the mission field,
confirmed the author's own conviction about the form the book should take, when he
wrote to say: "Perhaps the wisest thing for young missionaries would be to get them to
formulate their own answers from material supplied to them. No cut and dried answer
ever meets the need in
1
Another excellent manual on these lines, but much fuller, is Crusaders of the Twentieth Century, by
Rev. W. A. Rice, C.M.S., London, 1910. This book also is out of print.
xii INTRODUCTION
controversy, and the missionary ought to be ready to think the matter through for himself,
so that his answer is in line with the actual discussion taking place".
The lengthy reply of another correspondent, a worker in the Near East, is full of
such valuable comment that the author feels constrained to make rather extensive
quotations from it:
"In considering objections our first problem is to be aware of what lies
behind them. Why do Muslims attack Christianity? Why, indeed, did His
contemporaries attack Christ? In the gospels He is called blasphemer, drunkard, the
ignorant son of a carpenter, a breaker of the Sabbath and other Mosaic precepts, and
a man for whom none of the authorities had any regard. All kinds of insulting
remarks were thrown against Him. Christ Himself analysed all this criticism and in a
comprehensive statement declared, ‘The world hates me because I testify that its
deeds are evil', Jo. 7: 7; cp. the story of Demetrius, silversmith and defender of the
goddess Artemis, Acts 19: 24–27 and also Acts 28: 22.
"Much then of this criticism of Christ and Christianity is not specifically
Muslim, rather it is human and has existed from the days of the early disciples. This
has two sources: (I) due to difference of background, of custom and thought. If this
be all, sincere seekers will grasp the truth when they comprehend it, and to such we
owe the duty of careful explanation of the Christian position. (2) But the second and
the more common objection arises from a spirit of opposition to the moral challenge
of Christianity in action. More often than we suspect this will be found to be the real
difficulty. In the face of such a challenge, feeling himself to be in the wrong, a man
will criticise the source of the ideal presented. So that we need, as physicians of
souls, the wisdom and skill to know how to use the criticism itself as a means to the
correct diagnosis of the inner needs of those with whom we have to do.1
1
A very valuable handbook is Soul Surgery, by the late H. A. Walter, Y.M.C.A. Publishing House,
Calcutta, 12 annas; also Shoemaker, Children of the Second Birth.
INTRODUCTION xiii
"It has been said of Christ that when people came to Him with intellectual
problems on their mind, He sent them away with moral problems on their hands. If
we would copy the Master as our Perfect Example we will do that at times: (a) by
direct challenge—as to the rich young ruler; or (b) by a story to answer a problem—
as in the parable of the Good Samaritan; or (c) by answering question with
question—as did Jesus in the matter of the authority of John the Baptist; or again, (d)
by a reference to results—cp. Jesus' answer to the Baptist in prison."
The injunctions of Dr. St. Clair-Tisdall himself in this respect still hold good:
Do not start controversy, yet meet it when you must.
See not so much the Muslim, as the man for whom Christ died.
Make it your aim, not to silence or vanquish in "religious argument", but to win men
for Christ:
(a) by removing misconceptions; and
(b) by getting Muslims to read the Scriptures for themselves, especially the New
Testament.
Limit the discussion to one or two points, and first settle these before going on to
others; also work to a definite conclusion.
Be scrupulously fair in argument and courteous in manner; never let discussion
degenerate into quarrel.
Remember that some of your opponents may be trying to make you angry, and anger
is proof to them of your defeat.
Show that to you these things are profoundly serious, having to do with things
spiritual not carnal.
Refuse to be drawn into answering the question, "What do you think of
Muhammad?" Your business is to speak about Jesus Christ.
Give some title of courtesy to Muhammad, Hazrat, Ānhazrat; and of course to Jesus
also.
Be sure that you know the meaning of the theological terms you use; some are
Islamic and do not convey to Muslims the idea you may have in your own mind. So,
too, our Bible terms are not always understood by them.
xiv INTRODUCTION
Do not rely on your memory in quoting Scripture, especially when a Muslim quotes
it; make a point of turning up the references in the Bible. It is of the first importance,
and far more necessary, that you should know your Bible well than that you should
know the Qur’ān well.
Eagerly acknowledge, and show that you acknowledge, aspects of truth that are in
Islam as well as Christianity, and from this lead on to a statement of the fuller truth
as you know it in Christ.
Finally, never enter upon controversy without necessity, without knowledge, without
love or without prayer.
There is the advice, too, of our own Scriptures which all would do well to ponder:
"Shut your mind against foolish, popular controversy; be sure that only breeds strife. And the
Lord's servant must not be a man of strife; he must be kind to everybody, a skilled teacher, a man who
will not resent injuries; he must be gentle in his admonitions to the opposition—God may perhaps let
them change their mind and admit the Truth; they may come to their senses again and escape the
snare of the devil, as they are brought back to life by God to do His will", 2 Timothy 2: 23—26.
"Let your talk always have a saving salt of grace about it, and learn how to answer any
question put to you", Coloss. 4: 6.
While it was our Lord Himself who said:
"I will give you words and wisdom that not one of your opponents will be able to meet or
refute", Luke 21: 15 (Moffatt's trans.).
Two further explanations are required for the constant reference in this book to
the Qur’ān and the Ahmadis.
Because of Muslim presupposition and prejudice we are obliged to quote from
their Scripture, though we do not accept it as in any sense authoritative for Christianity.
The claims and arguments of the Ahmadis are referred to throughout the volume
not only because these are being quoted by the orthodox party who would not own
allegiance
INTRODUCTION xv
to them, but because of definite requests from several quarters.1

It remains to make grateful acknowledgment of the generous help received in the
compilation of this work. Some indication of my indebtedness to the works of Christian
scholars in the West is made in the lists of Books for Reference at the close of each
chapter. Moreover, I have combed through the file prepared by Miss Padwick, the
indefatigable Secretary of the Central Literature Committee for Moslems, Cairo and
Jerusalem, and found many a helpful suggestion. My colleagues, Revs. John Subhan and
James Sweetman, have given me ungrudging assistance in reading through the
manuscript before it went to the press, and thus helped me to make my "explanation" at
once more exact and more adequate. My wife, yet again, has given freely not only of her
time in typing the entire material for the press, but of her wise counsel and rare
encouragement.
LAHORE, L. B. J.
October, 1937.
1
See Appendix D, p. 221.
NOTES
I. In the transliteration of Arabic names and terms the following diacritical marks have
been adopted:
th for ‫ث‬ t for ‫ط‬

h ” ‫ح‬ z ” ‫ظ‬
kh ” ‫خ‬ ‘ ” ‫ع‬
dh ” ‫ذ‬ gh ” ‫غ‬
z ” ‫ز‬ q ” ‫ق‬
s ” ‫ص‬ ’ ” ‫ء‬
d ” ‫ض‬
2. References to the Qur’ān appear thus, 2: 5; the bold figure denoting the sūra, chapter,
the smaller figure the āyat, verse. The enumeration of the verses follows that of
Rodwell, The Koran, Everyman's Library edition.
CHAPTER
I
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
SCRIPTURES
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
The present Bible cannot be the original one as it does not agree with the Qur’ān
(p. 19).
Though corrupted the present Bible contains some parts of the original truth, e.g.
the Unity of God, punishment and reward, and the significance of the coming of the last
prophet, Muhammad. It is these parts only which the Qur’ān is said to confirm and
protect (pp. 18 and 32).
Where is the Gospel of Jesus? Did he not take it to heaven? (p. 4).
Which of the four gospels is the one which descended on Jesus, the son of Mary?
The Bible was already corrupted and interpolated at the time of the appearance of
the prophet Muhammad "by the presence in it of statements about the Divinity and
Sonship of Jesus and the teachings of the Trinity and Jesus' supposed death on the cross
and his resurrection from the grave".
"The gospels did exist in their present form in the 5th century of the Christian era.
The corruption, therefore, had already occurred in the Word of God" (pp. 46-7).
Latter day Christians have not been able to preserve theHoly Injīl "on account of
their forefathers' erasing the statements concerning the advent of Muhammad" (p. 22).
As the Taurāt was abrogated by the coming of the Zabūr, and the Zabūr by the
Injīl, so the entire Bible is abrogated by the Qur’ān (p. 28).
CHAPTER I
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES
The primary purpose of this book is to help the Christian evangelist to examine
dispassionately certain outstanding difficulties which the Muslim people experience in
regard to the Christian faith, and, at the same time, so to restate the truths involved as to
leave at least no reasonable ground for misunderstanding.
Some of these difficulties are traditional, and have been handed down without
intermission since the early days of Islam. Of these some can be shown to have arisen
from original misunderstanding and to have continued for the same reason, or through
misrepresentation not necessarily wilful. But more recently there has been bitter criticism
of the things we hold dear, due, primarily, to violent reaction against the work of
missionary apologists of the nineteenth century, who, in their preaching and writing, not
only defended the Christian position but sought to establish its superiority by pointing out
defects in Islam and its founder. This new attitude and its significance will also receive
our attention.
Before we can deal, however, with those subjects which more properly appertain
to the faith of the Church we are obliged, at the outset, to consider in some detail the
marked prejudice of Muslims concerning the Bible. They are assiduously taught to
believe, and do for the most part profess to believe, that the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments now in circulation are not genuine. The reasons commonly advanced for
such belief are that the original writings have been,
4 CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINED TO MUSLIMS
(I) corrupted, i.e. tampered with, muharraf.1 It is contended that there have been, at some
time or other, alterations, omissions, and additions in our Scriptures; in particular,
that statements about the Deity and Sonship of Christ, the Trinity, the death on the
cross and subsequent resurrection, have been deliberately inserted, while references
to Muhammad have been suppressed;
(2) abrogated, annulled, mansūkh; i.e. by the "descent" of the Qur’ān; so that the Bible is
no longer authoritative. Closely connected with this idea is the claim that the
Qur’ān is in itself a compendium of all true and necessary teaching contained in the
earlier books, supplemented by further revelation.
Occasionally the New Testament, as we have it, is declined for the quaint reason,
held by some, that Jesus at the time of His Ascension took the original Injīl with Him to
heaven.
No matter what particular connotation the term muharraf may have for him, the
Muslim almost invariably rests his case for the corruption of the Bible on what he thinks
the Qur’ān has to say about the question. For him that Book is the final court of appeal,
seeing that he believes it to contain only the ipsissima verba of God.
While reserving to ourselves the right to determine this matter on quite other
grounds, we shall nevertheless find it profitable, both for ourselves and Muslims, if we
make a close study of the numerous references in the Qur’ān to our Scriptures. In a book
of this size, however, a mere summary
1
The act is termed tahrīf, a word which, strictly speaking, signifies the transposition of letters in words,
thereby effecting "alteration" but Muslims often employ the term when bringing a charge of textual
corruption.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES 5
of our findings must suffice, but no statement having any real bearing on the subject will
be overlooked.
SUPPORT FROM THE QUR’ĀN FOR THE SCRIPTURES
It is, in the circumstances, of no small interest to find that the Qur’ān always
speaks of the earlier books with respect—in such terms, indeed, as to leave the very
definite impression that Muhammad, at any rate, believed in their divine origin and
genuineness. The impartial student will naturally wish first to scrutinize all such
language, and then, in the light of its significance, turn his attention to those passages
which Muslims persuade themselves contain charges of corruption in the text of the
Bible. That is the course we now propose to follow.
We begin with a consideration of the following facts:
1. The Qur’ān declares that

God Himself gave these Scriptures to His Prophets:
(a) "We did give the Book, Taurāt, to Moses", 32: 23; cp. 2: 50, 81; 11: 112; 21:
49; 25: 37; 37: 117; 40: 56; 41: 45; 45: 15. The Pentateuch is clearly intended
in all these passages.
(b) "To David We gave the Psalms, Zabūr", 17: 57; also 4: 161.
(c) "We gave him (Jesus) the Evangel, Injīl", 5: 50; cp. 19: 31; 57: 27.
and that
(d) "He sent down the Taurāt and the Injīl for the guidance of mankind", 3: 2.
2. The earlier books are invariably spoken of in terms of high praise, thus the
Taurāt is said to be
(a) "the Book of God", 5: 48; cp. 2: 95; 3: 22.
(b) "the Word of God", 2: 70.
(c) "Al Furqān", i.e. the Illumination, 21: 49; 2: 50; a title of distinction applied
also to the Qur’ān.
(d) "the perspicuous (or enlightening) Book", 3: 181 Jalāluddīn, in his commentary,
says the Taurāt and Injīl are here indicated.
(e) "a light and guidance to man……a decision for all matters and a guidance and a
mercy……..complete for him who acts aright", 6: 91, 155.
3. Other passages refer to the inspiration, authority and proper use of the
Scriptures then in the possession of "the People of the Book", thus:
(a) "Verily we have inspired thee (Muhammad) as we inspired Noah and the Prophets
after him", 4: 161; cp. 21: 7; 42: 1; 3: 66.
(b) "They (the Jews) have inherited the Book", 7: 168; cp. 42: 13.
(c) "they have already the Taurāt in which is God's judgment", 5: 47; 3: 75.
(d) Jews and Christians are said to be diligent readers of their Scriptures, 2: 41, 107,
115; 10: 93; cp. 3: 109.
(e) Those of the Jews "who hold fast by the Book" will be rewarded, 7: 169; so, too,
"if they (Jews and Christians) observe the Taurāt and Injīl", 5: 70.
(f) Jews and Christians are required not only to accept the Qur’ān, but to believe in
and observe the Taurāt and Injīl as well, e.g. "Ye have no ground to stand on
until ye observe the Taurāt and Injīl", 5: 72; cp. 4: 135.
(g) Muhammad himself is bidden believe in the Scriptures, and declares his
unqualified faith in them; "Say, (O Muhammad) ‘In whatsoever Books God hath
sent down do I believe'", 42: 14; 29: 45; 3: 78; cp. especially, "Ye (Muhammad
and his people) believe in the Book, the whole of it", bi’l kitābi kullihi, 3: 115.
Also, "If thou art in doubt about that which We have sent down to thee, inquire
of those who have read the Scriptures before thee", 10: 94.
(h) The Jews who rejected the Injīl are most severely condemned for declaring, "We
believe in a part and we reject a part" (of the Book), 4: 149.
4. Finally, it is stated that the Qur’ān
(a) verifies, attests, the previous Scriptures, e.g. "He hath sent down to thee
(Muhammad) the Book (Qur’ān) in truth, confirming what was before it……the
Taurāt and the Injīl", 3: 2; 10: 38; 46: 12, 29; 6: 92; 2: 38, 83, 91, 95; 4:50.
and
(b) is "their safeguard", 5: 52; which the commentator Baidāwī (13th cent. A.D.)
explains to mean, "A keeper over the whole of the (sacred) Books, such as shall
preserve them from change, and witness to their truth and authority".
The general tenor of these passages, scattered throughout the Qur’ān, establishes
beyond question the fact that the earlier Books were held by Muhammad to be genuine
and authoritative, because of their divine origin. Indeed, his main argument with "the
People of the Book" is just this—accept the Qur’ān also, because it confirms what was
sent down before it, e.g.
"O ye, to whom the Scriptures have been given! believe in what We have sent down
(i.e. the Qur’ān), confirmatory of the Scripture which is in your hands", 4: 50.
MEANING OF "CORRUPTION" IN THE QUR’ĀN
We are now in a better position to determine the significance of those other

references in the Qur’ān to the earlier Scriptures, which Muslims are wont to cite in
support of their contention that the text of the Bible has been wilfully tampered with. In
the light of what we have already found, that is the last thing we should expect to hear
from the lips of Muhammad. However, let us consider the purport of the following
verses, which are typical and representative:
(a) "A part of them (Jews) heard the word of God and then, after they had understood
it, perverted it, yuharrifūnahu, altered, corrupted, and knew that they did so", 2:
70—this is a general charge against the Jews with reference to their own
Scriptures.
(b) "The ungodly ones among them (Jews) changed that word into another than that
which had been told them", 7: 161-2; explained as referring to an incident in
Jewish history when, instead of saying hittat (forgiveness) as Divinely
commanded, the Jews wilfully mispronounced the word to make it habbat (corn);
cp. Jalāluddīn on 2: 56.
(c) "And, verily, there is a party of them (Jews) who twist their tongues (i.e. pervert it)
concerning the Book, that ye may suppose it to be from the Book, but it is not
from the Book. They say 'It is from God', but it is not from God, and they tell a
lie against God, and they know they do so", 3: 72; cp. 4: 48—the implication is
that by a deceptive mode of recitation, in fact mispronunciation, passages were
made to appear as coming from the Book, though in reality not there; in other
words, the Jews were pretending that they were reading from their Scripture.
(d) "Woe to those (Jews) who with their own hands write, yaktubūna, (i.e. wrongly)
the Book, and then say, 'This is from God', so that they may take for it a small
price. Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what
they gain"! 2: 73—said of ignorant Jews who sought to deceive Muhammad by
presenting to him passages written out by them from their traditions and
rabbinical books, and asserting that they were authoritative and divine.
(e) "Clothe not the truth with falsehood and hide not the truth when ye know it", 2: 39.
The Tafsīr-i-Raufī paraphrases thus: "Do not mingle with the truth that the praise
of Muhammad is recorded in the Taurāt the lie of a denial". cp. also "Who is
more unjust than he who hides a testimony which he hath received from God?" 2:
134. For other instances of such "concealment", see further 2: 141, 154, 169; 3:
64; 6: 91. Commenting on 5: 47,1 Ibn Ishāq says that when asked to read out the
verse of stoning for adultery in the Mosaic law, a Jewish leader actually laid his
hand on the incriminating verse, whereupon one named 'Abdullāh ibn Salām, a
renegade Jew, struck away the hand of the reader saying: "There, Prophet of
1
A passage referring to the stubbornness of the Jews.
God, there is the verse of stoning which he refuses to read to thee"

(f) "Among the Jews are those who pervert, yuharrifūna, the words from their places
and say, 'We have heard and we have not obeyed'; and 'Hear thou, but (only) as
one that hears not'; and, 'Look at us'—distorting (the words) with their tongues,
taunting about religion. But if they would say (instead), ‘We have heard and we
obey'; 'Hear thou and regard us', it were better for them and more right", 4: 48-49.
The complaint here made is that the Jews "perverted" words of salutation to make
them sound like abuse. cp. "O Apostle! let not those……vex thee……who say
with their mouths 'We believe', but whose hearts believe not; or the Jews—
listeners to a lie—listeners to others—but who come not to thee. They pervert the
words from their places", 5: 45.
This charge of perversion, or "dislocation," of words is quite general; the actual

illustrations given at this place have nothing whatever to do with the Scriptures.1
THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE NOT AFFECTED
Two facts emerge from a consideration of these passages: (I) the people against
whom Muhammad brings these charges are Jews, not Christians. No such complaint is
made against the latter in any part of the Qur’ān; (2) even so, in no case are the Jews
charged with having tampered with the text of their Scriptures. Indeed, after the evidence
we have had of the high regard in which he held the earlier books it is unthinkable that by
these expressions Muhammad intended actual corruption of the text.
On the other hand, it may fairly be argued that these complaints rather testify to
the genuineness of the Scriptures in Muhammad's day, for
"mispronunciation" implies that the right word was there;
1
cp. Encyc. of Islam, Vol. IV, p. 619; art. tahrīf.
one cannot "write wrongly" unless the correct text be before one;
there can be no "hiding the truth" unless one has the truth to hide.
CONFIRMATION BY A MODERN MUSLIM
Such was the conclusion at which that careful scholar, Sir William Muir, arrived
as long ago as 1855, after a most thorough investigation of the meaning of each and every
reference in the Qur’ān to the earlier Scriptures.
His view was confirmed later by the eminent Indian Muslim, Sir Sayyid Ahmad
Khan, founder of Aligarh College, who in 1862 wrote a treatise on the subject of tahrīf to
demonstrate to Muslims that in no place does the Qur’ān charge the Jews and Christians
with actual alteration of the text of their Scriptures.
Sir Sayyid pointed out that early Muslim writers recognized, in theory, two forms
of tahrīf, viz. tahrīf-i-lafzī, verbal corruption, i.e. of the text; and tahrīf-i-ma‘nawī,
corruption of meaning, or interpretation. He illustrates the two types as follows:
1. Tahrīf-i-lafzī may be effected by
(a) adding words or phrases not in the original text;
(b) striking out words or phrases from the text;
(c) substituting other words, differing in meaning from those struck out.
2. Tahrīf-i-ma‘nawi may be effected by
(a) making verbal changes while reading, so as to convey to the ear words different
from what were written;
(b) reading only some passages, and omitting others;
(c) instructing people in a manner contrary to God's teaching in His Holy word, and
yet making them believe that this instruction is the true word;
(d) adopting an improper meaning of certain words of ambiguous or equivocal
interpretation, which does not suit the sense intended;
(e) misinterpreting those passages which are mystical and allegorical.
These, according to Sir Sayyid, exhaust the possible ways of tahrīf, the offence of
which lies in doing this kind of thing "knowingly", "wilfully", and with a view to "an
obvious perversion of the true meaning of the text". He then goes on to say, "I do not at
all intend to assert that all these methods were actually put into practice for the purpose of
corrupting the Scriptures. On the contrary, in the opinion of us Muhammadans it is not
proved that corruption of the first three kinds was practised. Some doctors of our faith
have, indeed, maintained that corruption of the first three kinds above-mentioned must
have been practised. . . . . but on consideration it will appear that these arguments are not
sound; nor do such alterations or interpretations (i.e. as they suggest) pertain to those
corruptions which are spoken of in the holy Qur’ān. . . . . What we have to consider is
whether all the copies of the Scriptures, scattered throughout Christendom and Judaism,
did really go forth with corruption of the three kinds indicated . . . . Other more learned
doctors of our faith have stated their deliberate conviction that no such corruption (i.e. of
the tahrīf-i-lafzī type) took place in the Scriptures, and have thus rejected the opinions
advanced by those above mentioned."
The learned writer then proceeds to cite Muslim authors of repute in proof of his
statement, e.g. Imam Bukhārī (810—870 A.D.) who says, "there is no man who could
corrupt a single word of what has proceeded from God, so that the Jews and Christians
could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meaning of the words of God"1; also
Fakhruddīn Rāzī (1150—1210 A.D.) who, commenting on the words, "Verily, they who
hide what God hath revealed of the Book, and sell
1
Kitābu't-Tahrīf.
it for a little price, they shall eat nothing in their bellies save fire", 2: 169, states, on the
authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammad, that
"The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the
Taurāt and Injīl; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not
practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known
and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation. No
interpolation could therefore be made in them, although it is admitted that some
people used to conceal their true sense and interpretation."
Sir Sayyid devotes the remainder of his treatise to showing that, in the opinion of
these and other authorities, the "corruption" which the Qur’ān has in view, in such verses
as we have quoted, is perversion of meaning and interpretation.
For instance, he quotes at length from Fakhruddīn Rāzī, who expounds the
significance of the words "why clothe ye the truth in falsehood" in 3: 64 and 2: 39 thus:
"Those passages from the Old Testament which foretold the advent of our Prophet
Muhammad certainly required great judgment and thought for their right apprehension,
and the Jews were accustomed to wrest the true sense of these passages, and cavil at the
conclusions to which they naturally led when correctly understood". . . . . "The Jews were
always denying the rightful interpretation of these prophecies, and busied themselves in
captious and unprofitable disputations, and in striving, by over-strained arguments and
illogical reasoning, to explain away their true meaning. It was then that this āyat was sent
down from heaven enjoining them not to adulterate truth with falsehood, so as to mislead
people by the doubts they cast upon the true sense of the disputed passages of Scripture."1
1
Syud Ahmud, The Mohomedan Commentary on the Holy Bible, 7th Discourse, Ghazeepore, 1862.
In other words, the Jews are charged with concealing and lying about the contents
of their Book and with twisting it with false interpretation. They are even likened in the
Qur’ān to an ass laden with valuable books, of the contents and value of which it is
grossly ignorant, 62: 5.
THE SITUATION IN MUHAMMAD'S DAY
The naive comments of Fakhruddīn Rāzī inevitably suggest to the mind the
situation in which Muhammad found himself when confronted with the Jews, more
especially at Madina. He had a controversy with them, and a particular aspect of it is
reflected in these very passages we have been considering. While in Mecca he had
formed a great respect for these people, themselves monotheists with a divinely-inspired
Book; and from them he learned of predictions in their Scriptures concerning the advent
of a prophet, whom God was to raise up.
For a time the Jews were cordial, being gratified at his "strong leaning towards,
and respect for, their Scriptures and Histories".1 Thereafter Muhammad, claiming as he
had done from the first, God's call and commission, arrived at the point where he began
to claim also that the Scriptures in the hands of the Jews actually foretold his coming.
Apart altogether from Muslim comment, the Qur’ān itself makes this fact indubitably
clear, e.g. "The ummī2 prophet, whom they find written down with them in the Taurāt
(and Injīl)", 7: 156. cp. 10: 94; 6: 20; 13: 36; 2: 71. Baidhāwī and Jalāluddīn, explaining
the last of these passages, paraphrase the words, "What God hath revealed to you", thus:
"that is, made manifest to you in the Taurāt regarding the description of Muhammad".
1
cp. Rodwell's note on 13: 36; p. 337 (Everyman's Library ed.).
2
The term probably signifies illiterate.
But this claim was something which the Jews as a whole stoutly denied, and to
this denial also the Qur’ān bears witness; thus: "When there came to them (the Jews) an
apostle from God, affirming the previous revelations made to them, some of those to
whom the Scriptures were given threw the Book of God behind their backs, as if they
knew it not", 2: 95. Muhammad himself is evidently intended here; but the Jews, in this
graphic phrase, indignantly rejected him. After all their denial was quite natural, for what
they did know from their Book was that the promised prophet would be through Isaac,
the son of promise—a Jew, not through the son of Hagar—an Ishmaelite; for God had
said, "My covenant will I establish with Isaac"; "in Isaac shall thy seed (O Abraham) be
called", Genesis, 17: 21; 21: 12. Moreover, it only made them more hostile towards him
when they saw that he credited Jesus, son of Mary, with being the Messiah, whom their
nation had already rejected. cp. 3: 40; 4: 156, 169.
THE CHARGES EXPLAINED
Viewed now in the light of our findings the various complaints in the Qur’ān
become intelligible. Muhammad, himself unable to read, was wont to seek information
and confirmation about certain matters from their Scriptures at the hands of the Jews. It
might be concerning the presence or otherwise in the Mosaic Law of the penalty of
stoning for adultery, cp. 2: 73 and 5: 45. Baidhāwī, commenting on the latter verse, says
that it had to do with the Jews' contradictions and contentions with Muhammad
concerning the presence of "the verse of stoning" in their Scriptures.1 More usually,
however, it concerned the correct interpretation of passages in the Old Testament which
Muhammad and his followers sought to appropriate as confirming his claims to
1
cp. ed. Osmania Press, Istanbul, 1314, A.H. vol. I. 301 (margin).
be the prophet who should come. It was on such occasions that the Jews were charged
with "changing", "hiding", and "transposing" words, and with "mispronouncing" them
when asked to read out, or copy out, for Muhammad and his adherents, passages from the
Scriptures said to have reference to these matters. They adopted these devices, says the
Qur’ān, when repudiating the interpretation advanced by the prophet.
Strained relationships followed, as we gather from the Qur’ān; "Hast thou not
marked those who have received a portion of the Scriptures, when they are summoned to
the Book of God, that it may settle their differences? Then did a part of them turn back,
and withdraw far off", 3: 22; see also vv. 80 and 184. And there seems plenty of evidence
that the Jews teased Muhammad—the Qur’ān records the embittered feelings on both
sides, "Of all men thou wilt certainly find the Jews . . . . to be the most intense in hatred
of (Muslims)", 5: 85. But in this matter of his claim that their Scriptures contained
predictions of his advent and his mission, they resolutely withstood him. What happened
afterwards is a matter of history—Muhammad, having exhausted all means to gain their
support, ruthlessly swept the Jews from his path. To this exasperation also the Qur’ān
bears witness, "O ye, to whom the Scriptures have been given! believe in what We have
sent down confirmatory of that which is in your hands, ere We deface your features, and
twist your head round backward, or curse you as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers", 4: 50;
2: 73, 154. May it not be claimed that many of those Jews of Madina gave their lives in
defence of their Book?
SPECIOUS ARGUMENTS OF THE AHMADIS
The facts and their evidence which we have assembled up to this point are drawn
from the Qur’ān and Muslim
commentators, and should suffice to convince any fair-minded person that the Qur’ān
nowhere charges even the Jews with altering the text of their Scriptures. And one can but
hope that the carefully reasoned statement of a Muslim scholar of the standing of Sir
Sayyid Ahmad Khan will help educated Muslims to realize that the Bible has not in fact
been deliberately tampered with.
We find, however, that those who are of the Ahmadi school of thought persist in
refusing the conclusion to which this evidence points. They agree, it is true, that many of
the verses in the Qur’ān that speak of "alteration" have reference to differences of
interpretation put upon certain passages in the Scriptures; e.g. Maulana Muhammad Ali,
in his note (73) On 2: 39 says, "‘Mixing up the truth with the falsehood' signifies their
mixing up the prophecy with their own false interpretation of it, and thus making obscure
the prophecy itself; while ‘hiding the truth' signifies their concealing the prophecy itself,
for they often commanded their followers not to disclose to the Muslims those prophecies
which were known to them". But, arming themselves with some of the deductions of
modern critical study of the text of the Bible, the Ahmadis commit the anachronism of
reading those deductions into the situation which Muhammad faced in the seventh
century A.D.
Thus we find the afore-mentioned commentator writing the following note (582)
on 4: 48, which speaks of the Jews displacing the words of their Scriptures and
"distorting" them with their tongues:
"The corruption of the previous books is constantly referred to in the Holy

Qur’ān, and as the words clearly show, it implies a corruption of the text as well as a
false rendering of it. It is unreasonable on the part of the apologists of the Bible to
deny such corruption when clear instances of it have been pointed out. The subject
of the perversion of 'holy writ' is specially dealt with in the Holy Our'an in
2: 75-79; 5: 13, 41 and here. The 'verification' referred to here (ver. 50) and
elsewhere . . . does not in any way negative the corruption and alteration of the text
which is only too apparent to be seriously contested."
Nevertheless, our careful scrutiny has failed to reveal the clear evidence of which
this writer is so easily assured.
Naturally his commentary, like all the earlier ones, turns repeatedly to the subject
of ‘prophecies' in the Scriptures alleged to have reference to Muhammad, cp. his note
(143) on 2: 95:
"The covenant referred to in the previous verse as being cast aside, and the
throwing of the Book behind their backs, both refer to the Israelites paying no heed
to the prophecy of Deut. 18: 18, which was verified by the advent of the Holy
Prophet. So clearly did that prophecy point to the Holy Prophet that it is again and
again referred to in this chapter as the most powerful argument against the inimical
attitude of the Jews."
Again in his note (951) on 7: 156, he declares:
"There are many prophecies regarding the advent of the Holy Prophet both
in the Old and New Testaments . . . The Gospel is full of the prophecies of the
advent of the Holy Prophet; Matt. 13: 31 (parable of the mustard seed); 21: 34-40;
Mark 12: 1; Luke 20: 9 (vineyard and wicked husbandmen—Muhammad being
indicated as the 'Lord of the vineyard'); John 1: 22 (prob. ver. 21 is intended); 14: 16
and 26 (the Comforter)—all contain such prophecies."
Inasmuch as Christian apologists in the past have frequently cited (rather

unwisely), certain passages in the Qur’ān itself by way of proof of the integrity of the
Bible, it is interesting to find this modern commentator taking pains to show that the
verses really mean something different. Since his view is often quoted by Muslim writers
in these days, we should observe how he seeks to remove what support these Qur’ānic
statements might afford. Extracts from his notes (697–703)
on the section 5: 48-52, furnish us with a good example of his specious reasoning:
"The first statement made here is that the Torah was a Divine revelation
containing light and guidance. This is a statement which no Muslim has ever denied.
What is denied is that that light and guidance were kept intact throughout the ages. .
. . . They certainly contained light and guidance, but only for one people—the
Israelites, and for a limited time". . . . "The statement made here is that the masters
of Divine knowledge and the doctors ‘were required to guard part of the book of
Allah', i.e. Torah.1 Now this statement by no means implies that they actually
guarded the Book so as to be able to transmit it in all its purity. They were no doubt
required to do it, but it is nowhere stated that they had succeeded in guarding it”…
"Another point worth noting in the statement under discussion is that even
the doctors were required to guard min Kitāb-illāh, which signifies a part of the
Book of Allah. The whole is not meant, otherwise the word min, signifying part,
would not have been added". . . . . "The Qur’ān is called muhaimin or a guardian
over all previous revelation, thus showing that whatever was of permanent value in
the previous scriptures has been preserved in the Qur’ān, and secured from the
corruption which it was undergoing in them. The previous books contained a light
and guidance for the people for whom they were meant, and they were commanded
to judge by those books, but the Qur’ān is now made the Book which judges all
truth, wherever it may have been, and therefore is the only Book which should be
followed."
With reference to the Maulana's interpretation of the phrase min Kitāb-illāh, it

should be said that while the preposition min certainly can have this partitive
significance, yet the weight of Muslim authority is against so taking it
1
Muhammad Ali, in his translation facing the Arabic text, puts the word "part" in brackets because,
strictly speaking, it has no equivalent in the original, though in his comment he has removed the brackets.
here. For instance, Zamakhsharī, Baidhāwī and Sharbīnī interpret the preposition to be
explanatory, with the sense of "viz.", not partitive;1 likewise Tabarī, Fakhruddīn Rāzī and
other commentators, imply that min is here explanatory, though they give no note about
it.
THE MUSLIM'S DILEMMA
The outstanding fact emerging from this old controversy, a fact of which we shall
have occasion to speak repeatedly in this volume, is that there is marked disagreement on
several vital matters between the Qur’ān and the Bible. This is something which cannot,
and does not, escape the notice of the earnest, educated Muslim of to-day. The more he
thinks of it, the more embarrassing he feels the dilemma to be. "Is he to believe in the
Qur’ān's witness to the Bible and deny the Qur’ān itself—his own Book. Or is he to deny
the witness of the Qur’ān and so the Qur’ān itself?" His way out of a hopeless position is
to assert that one of the Books must have been corrupted and is, therefore, now
untrustworthy. This, he argues, cannot be the Qur’ān for it belongs (so he persuades
himself) to an altogether superior category; therefore it must be the Bible; accordingly, he
accuses the Christians with having corrupted it. But no one will consider this to be sound
reasoning.
The Christian, on the contrary, has proofs to hand whereby it can be demonstrated
that the Bible to-day is, substantially, what it was in Muhammad's time. He therefore
concludes that, notwithstanding the language of the Qur’ān, the disagreement between
the two Books goes back to the time of
1
Min li’l-tabyīn, not min li’l-taba‘dīh. The present writer is indebted to Professor D. S. Margoliouth, of
Oxford, for the particulars in this paragraph.
Muhammad; in other words, the Qur’ān has at no time agreed with the Bible.
The most effective answer, however, to such charges of corruption when put
forward by Muslims, is not to be found through disputations with them about the precise
meaning of this or that phrase in the Arabic Qur’ān. For it requires but a moment's
reflection on the part of the unprejudiced student of both Books to realize that the Qur’ān,
in the very nature of the case, cannot be looked upon as a criterion, either in the matter of
the authenticity of the contents of the Bible, or of the history of the transmission of its
text.
There are other and convincing arguments, coupled with irrefutable proofs,
whereby we can show that these charges of wilful and base perversion of the text are
groundless, because: (1) contrary to reason, and (2) contradicted by fact.
THESE ACCUSATIONS ARE OPPOSED TO REASON
(a) The Jews can, and should, be exonerated from any such charge; not only
because repeatedly warned in their own Book against the sin of perverting it, cp. Deut. 4:
2; 12: 32; Prov. 30: 5-6; but chiefly for the reason that their extraordinary regard for, and
care of, the Scriptures is amply attested. Those early Jewish scholars, known as the
Talmudists (c. 270–500 A.D.), laid down the most minute rules to ensure that scribes
would make a faithful copying of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures; and this text they
handed down to the Massoretes.1
The Massoretes, in turn, "numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book.
They calculated the middle
1
The Massoretes were a school of Jewish doctors who undertook to provide the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament with points to indicate the vowels. They commenced their work about the beginning of the
seventh century.
word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the
letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we
might rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise
transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the
sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed
anxious that not one jot or tittle—not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter—of
the Law should pass away or be lost"……."When once that revision was completed, such
precautions were taken to secure its preservation, to the exclusion of any other form of
text, as to make it certain that the text has been handed down to us, not indeed without
any errors or variations, but without essential corruption".1
The Christians, similarly, encountered the most grave warning against any wilful
tampering with their Scriptures:
"If any man shall add unto the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall
add unto him the plagues which are written in this book; and if any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part
from the tree of life, and out of the holy city", Revelation, 22: 18-19.
These were words of such solemnity that Christians would learn to apply them to the
whole of the New Testament writings. Apart from which one has but to consider the
tireless labours of expert scholars of recent times, (I) in searching for ancient manuscripts
in the Near East; (2) in their minute and fearless scrutiny of the great mass of them;
1
"The importance of the Massoretic edition to us lies in the fact that it is still the standard text of the
Hebrew Bible. All the extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament contain substantially a Massoretic
text." Sir Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p. 33.
and (3) their zeal and co-operation in the acquisition and preservation of these silent
witnesses to the faithful transmission of the text of the Scriptures, to realize that in the
case of Christians also the charge of wilful corruption is not only unjust but unreasonable.
(b) In view of these facts one is constrained to ask, What object could ever have
induced either Jews or Christians to tamper with the text of Scriptures so sacred?
The Muslims are apt to reply that the one sufficient reason was to suppress
Muhammad's name; that is, to conceal or erase all reference to him—the Jews from the
Old Testament, and the Christians from the New.
One readily understands why this plea is still persisted in—it follows the lead of
the Qur’ān. But so facile an assertion contains a prime fallacy, that of "begging the
question"; for it has yet to be proved that the Scriptures ever contained even one remote
reference to Muhammad; and the onus of doing so rests, not on the Jew nor the Christian,
but on the Muslim. Jew and Christian can unite in this matter and fearlessly declare, in
the words of the prophet Nehemiah to Sanballat at the rebuilding of the walls of
Jerusalem, "There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of
thine own heart", Nehem. 6: 8.
As all the claims put forward by Muslims based on various passages supposed by
them to have reference to Muhammad, including even Deut. 18: 18 on which Maulana
Muhammad Ali lays so much stress, have been repeatedly examined and as often
repudiated by Christian writers, they need not detain us here.1 Nevertheless, the glaring
inconsistency of Muslims
1
cp. Pfander, Mizānu’ l-Haqq, Part III, Ch. 2.
Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, Chap. VII.
Goldsack, Muhammad and the Bible.
Art. by the author on the Paraclete passages in the Fourth Gospel, The Moslem World quarterly, Vol.
X, 1920.
in this matter should not escape our notice. Though constantly asserting that our
Scriptures have already been corrupted and in the manner and with the object just stated,
it is amusing to find many of them still claiming that the Bible as it stands, the Bible so
"corrupted" that they cannot accept its authority, contains numerous allusions to
Muhammad. Witness the length to which, in his misguided zeal, a certain Muslim writer
goes. Referring to the words of Jesus, "The prince of this world cometh", etc.,1 he says,
"By this prince of the world is signified prophet Mohammed, for God has made him a
leader of both the worlds"……"Jesus Christ would never say believe in a bad person or
Satan, and Satan or a bad person (could) never become a prince of the world".2 This is
said in all seriousness.
(c) But look at this charge in the light of the situation in which the Jews found
themselves in Muhammad's day. Is it conceivable that they could have been so inane?
Rather from what we know of the strong dislike in which Muhammad held them, we feel
that had their Scriptures really contained references to him they would have submitted to
him and thus escaped his unwelcome attentions.3 No! their circumstances were so
desperate that they must have been sorely tempted at times to manufacture and insert
some "prophecies" about him.
Besides, there is the fact that long before the time of Muhammad the Jews had
been familiar with claims of the Christians to the effect that certain Messianic prophecies
in the Old Testament had received their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth; yet they made no
attempt to erase these passages,
1
John, 14: 30.
2
See Proof of Prophet Mohammad from the Holy Bible, p. 18. The Mohammedan Tract Depot, Lahore.
3
cp. The People of the Mosque, pp. 24-29.
though in this case also they persistently rejected the interpretation which the Christians
put upon them.
(d) It only remains to point out that it would have been utterly impossible for the
Jews and the Christians to have effected this kind of textual corruption at or about the
time of Muhammad, for the following very good reasons:
By that period they were spread over the whole of the known world and could not
have met together to agree to do this thing.
Had sections of them, then, altered the Book without joint agreement, their
alterations would most certainly have differed and, in time, been detected.
There was, by then, the further insurmountable difficulty of diversity of language.
Jews and Christians were to be found not only in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and
Armenia, but throughout Europe, in North Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, Mesopotamia,
Persia, and even in India, and were making use of the languages current in several of
these lands.
Then, too, the Jews and Christians were, unfortunately, mutually hostile; so that
the one party would have promptly exposed any alterations or perversions by the other.
This hostility is reflected even in the Qur’ān, cp. 2: 107.
And yet the fact remains—the Jews have always accepted, and still use, the same
text of the Hebrew Old Testament as that studied by the Christians1; while all Christians
use the same text of the Greek New Testament.
At that time Christians were divided into a number of hostile sects. Mutual
jealousy alone would have prevented these from ever agreeing to do such a thing.
1
The English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication Society of
America (The Holy Scriptures, Philadelphia, 1917) is itself a rare tribute to the accuracy and fidelity of the
English translation by Christian scholars.
Finally, several Jews and Christians had by then become Muslims. Had their
former co-religionists ever dared to tamper with the text of the sacred Scriptures, these
apostates to Islam would have been able to bring forward unaltered copies of the Book to
prove the "corruption". We read of no such action, because the need never arose.
AND CONTRADICTED BY FACT
Furthermore, the evidence of ancient manuscripts, now in our possession and

known to belong to a period prior to the rise of Islam, fully confirms the reasoned
argument put forward above. Granted that it is of a nature such as only the few educated
Muslims can weigh and appreciate, still since it is true we ought to state it. With the
spread of education and closer acquaintance with the facts, this is such proof as will at
length bring conviction.
Evidence from Ancient Manuscripts
1. We actually possess to-day ancient Greek manuscripts of the whole Bible,

which were copied long before the time of Muhammad by scribes, from still older MSS.
It is from these that our modern scholars supply the world with the printed Greek text of
the Old and New Testaments.
These pre-Islamic MSS. give us the most reliable information as to the contents of
the Bible at the time of Muhammad, because, as we shall indicate, they are known to
have been in existence in his day, and, indeed, long before his birth.
They can be seen by anyone who is able to make the journey to the museums
where they are being preserved with the utmost care. We shall only mention the most
notable:
(a) The Codex Alexandrinus, in the British Museum, London; written about the
middle of the 5th
century, i.e. about 170 years before the Hijra, (622 A.D.)
(b) The Codex Sinaiticus, also in the British Museum, London; purchased in 1933 for
£100,000. This was written about the middle of the 4th century, i.e. about 270 years
before the Hijra.
(c) The Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library, Rome; written early in the 4th century,
i.e. about 300 years before the Hijra.
These manuscripts are written on vellum, a durable material of skin, and the
expert scholars of the world are agreed on their very great age. They are at least as old as
we have stated, they may be older still.
Though our oldest extant MS. of the Hebrew Old Testament, containing the
Taurāt, Zabūr, and the writings of the Jewish prophets, dates from the 9th century yet
"scholars are agreed that the Hebrew books, as we know them to-day, have come down to
us without material change since about A.D. 100".1 Even so, there has been preserved
and handed on to us the ancient Septuagint version of the Old Testament, i.e. a Greek
rendering which was made from the Hebrew text somewhere between 250–200 years
B.C., or about 800 years before the Hijra.
2. In addition to these manuscripts we possess numerous ancient versions of the
Bible, which were made from the original Hebrew and Greek texts long before the rise of
Islam. The chief of these are in Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Scholars tell us that these
translations were prepared before the end of the 3rd century; those in Syriac and Latin
may well belong to the 2nd century. Our oldest extant manuscripts of these versions date
from the 5th and 6th centuries.
1
The Story of the Bible, by Sir Frederick Kenyon, p. 13.
3. Finally, we find numerous quotations from the sacred Scriptures in the

preserved writings of early Christian Fathers. The references in their books are, in fact, so
extensive and so clear as to furnish us with remarkable confirmation as to the reading of
the text, at these places, in their day. Consider how long prior to Islam the following
lived: Irenaeus (c. 135-202), Clement of Alexandria (c. 155–220), Origen (185-253),
Tertullian (c. 150–220), Cyprian (c. 200–258), Eusebius (c. 270–340), Chrysostom (c.
347–407), Jerome (c. 345–420), Augustine (354-430).
Expert scrutiny of this mass of material—and it has been made—reveals beyond
any manner of doubt that, in all essential particulars, the Bible then was what it is now. In
other words, these documents are silent but incontrovertible witnesses to the fact that
there has been no such wilful tampering with the text of the Scriptures, as alleged, since
the days when they were written, hundreds of years before the Hijra.
NOR HAS THE BIBLE BEEN ABROGATED
Let us now give our attention to that other and quite different assertion of the
Muslims—that the Bible has been abrogated by the "descent" of the Qur’ān and so,
having lost its authority, need not now be read.
So far our impression, on the testimony of the Qur’ān itself, has been entirely the
reverse of this; moreover, as we shall see, there is not the least support in the Muslim
scripture for such a notion. Besides, it is against both common sense and the plain
statement of the Bible.
When sometimes the Muslim, seeking a simile, cites the phenomenon of changing
dynasties and the rise and fall of kings, he overlooks the fact that, notwithstanding such
changes, there tends to persist through all the reigns a body of "common law", which is
not subject to frequent fluctuation.
But his illustration is singularly inappropriate, since we are considering the All-Wise God
and His revealed Word. He, through time and eternity, is the One Abiding King, and
there can be no such periodic cancellation of the Truth He chooses to reveal. He is "the
Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning".1
Would any Muslim suggest either to a Jew or a Christian that, for instance, the
Ten Commandments in the Taurāt have been thus abrogated by the Injīl? Certainly not,
and if he pauses to think he must see that the notion cannot be seriously entertained. For
the Bible may, not inaptly, be likened to a fruit-bearing tree with its roots and stem, its
branches and leaves. All its parts serve a useful purpose, but men live by eating the fruit,
not the root. Yet the fruit owes much to the root, stem, branches and leaves. So it is with
the Bible—there is a Living Word that gives unity to it. Yet that Word attains its perfect
unfolding only in the Lord Jesus Christ.
We remember, too, what He Himself said about this very matter, "Think not that I
am come to destroy (i.e. annul) the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy, but
to fulfil" (i.e. to bring to fruition).2
It is not difficult, however, to see how this notion has grown up among Muslims.
It is obvious to all that the differences in the two Books can never be reconciled, and so
this plea of abrogation is put forward as an alternative to the charge of corruption; and,
once again, support is sought for it in certain statements in the Qur’ān.
The verses commonly cited as establishing this contention are the following:
"And when We change one āyat, (verse or sign) for another, and God
knoweth best what He revealeth, they say, ‘Thou art only a forger'", 16: 103;
1
Ep. James, 1: 17.
2
Mat. 5:17.
and this,
"Whatever āyat We cancel or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better or its

like. Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?" 2: 100; cp. 13: 39; 4:
84.
On the face of it, the first of these statements seems to suggest that Muhammad
was found to be making contradictory assertions—"Thou art only a forger", his
opponents declared. But they were reminded that since God is the Revealer, He is at
liberty to change or abolish His own laws at His discretion. This word āyat was thus
made to refer, at the very outset, to a verse, or section, of the Qur’ān itself; and that has
been the orthodox view of the matter all through. Accordingly we find that the old
commentators scrutinized every conflicting statement in the Qur’ān, wherever found, and
expounded the doctrine, well-known among Muslims, of ABROGATION. In all the most
famous commentaries on the Qur’ān this doctrine is taken for granted, viz: Tabarī (d. 310
A.H.), Zamakhsharī (d. 538 A.H.), Fakhruddīn (d. 606 A.H.), Baidhāwī (d. 685 A.H.),
and in the Itqan fi ‘ulum al-Qur’ān of Jalāluddīn as-Suyūtī (d. 911 A.H.). Fakhruddīn
devotes many pages to a discussion of naskh and its meaning, and lays it down as
established by the ijmā' (agreement) of the Muslim people that the term applies to the
Qur’ān, i.e. that passages now in the Qur’ān text, or once in the Qur’ān text, have been
abrogated.1
In keeping with this principle, one āyat is said to be nāsikh, the canceller, and
another āyat, mansūkh, the cancelled. While difference of opinion existed as to the
precise number of the abrogated verses—it has ranged from five to five hundred—a
common figure given is 225.2 We shall quote here three of the more noteworthy to show
how the doctrine works:
1
ed. Cairo, 1307 A.H., Vol. I, pp. 441-447.
2
cp. Abrogation in the Koran, Anwar-ul-Haqq, Lucknow, I925; the writer has compiled a list of 263.
(a) 2: 59 reads, "Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish
religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites (i.e. a semi-Christian sect of
Babylonia)—whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that
which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon
them, neither shall be grieved".
This āyat is held to have been cancelled by,
3: 79, "Whoso desireth any other religion than Islam, that religion shall surely not be
accepted from him, and in the next world he shall be among the lost".
(b) 2: 109 reads: "The East and the West is God's: therefore, whichever way ye turn there is
the face of God".
This is held to have been abrogated by,
2: 139, "We have seen thee turning thy face towards every part of Heaven, but We will
have thee turn to a qibla which shall please thee. Turn then thy face towards the
sacred Mosque (i.e. the Ka‘ba at Mecca), and wherever ye be, turn your faces
towards that part."
(c) 2: 257 reads: "Let there be no compulsion in Religion".
This has been annulled by the famous āyatu's-saif, The Verse of the Sword:
9: 5, "When the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God
wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for
them with every kind of ambush". cp. also verse 29, "Make war upon such of
those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the
last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden,
etc.".
AHMADI VIEWS OF ABROGATION
This doctrine, however, is extremely distasteful to the modern educated Muslim.

One such, writing recently in support of a correspondent who had asserted that "the
theory of abrogation (as propounded by a madrassa-passed maulvi) is itself contradicted
by the Qur’ān, 2: 1; 11: 1;
15: 9", declared: "To say that there are mutually contradictory verses in the Qur’ān is to
confess that it is not the word of God; for the Qur’ān itself says that if this book were
from any other besides God it would be found to contain many contradictions".1
Moreover, by the most unwarrantable exegesis, Maulana Muhammad Ali would
have us believe that in the classic passage, 2: 100, "the word āyat (which he says ‘means
a message or a communication') does not signify an āyat of the Holy Qur’ān, but the
message or the law given to the Jews". So great is this expositor's concern to refute the
traditional opinion in this matter that he deems it necessary to write a 700 word note
(152) on it in his commentary. He begins with the frank admission: "These words are
generally considered as forming the basis of what is known as the doctrine of abrogation
in the Qur’ān", but contends that, since there is no agreement among Muslim writers as to
the number of the verses so abrogated, the doctrine itself is based on mere conjecture;
besides, he says, there is no tradition which traces abrogation back to the authority of
Muhammad. It has even been stated that Muslims who adhere to this doctrine are only
following the lead of "obscure authors who enjoy no credit for reliability or accuracy".2
Commenting on this astonishing assertion, Professor D. B. Macdonald, of
Hartford Seminary, U.S.A., has stated, "I know of no evidence that the word āyat, or any
of its plurals, can refer to our Scriptures; such is certainly not the Muslim use……I have
been unable to find the extant works of any author who denies the doctrine that one part
of the Qur’ān has been abrogated by another, and that, on the other hand,
1
The Light, Lahore, 16 June, 1937, cp. 4: 84.
2
The Holy Qur’ān with English Translation, Qadian, 1915, Pt. I, p. 89.
such has been the consistent ijma‘, agreement, of Islam from the first……and to doubt it
would be heresy, if not unbelief……The Ahmadiya position is an innovation (bid‘a) in
Islam of the gravest kind."1
DOES THE QUR’ĀN CONTAIN ALL NECESSARY TEACHING?
We have already observed that Muslims seek to dispense with the Bible on the
ground that the Qur’ān is a sort of compendium of all that is vitally necessary in our
Scriptures. A Quranic passage sometimes quoted in support of this assertion runs thus,
"An apostle from God, reciting pure pages, wherein are right scriptures", kutubun
qaiyyimatun, 98: 2.
"Right scriptures" in the Arabic is indefinite, with no obvious reference to
anything preceding. This makes it the more extraordinary that a writer of the eminence of
our Ahmadi commentator should not only use the definite article, but insert the word
"all", thus, "wherein are all the right books". That looks uncommonly like the offence
which the Qur’ān denounces, viz.: "corruption by wilful misinterpretation”. We suspect it
to be a case of the wish being father to the thought, for in his note (2783) he says:
"the meaning of the passage is that in the Holy Qur’ān all those right
directions are to be met with which were revealed in any other book, as well as those
which may not have been previously revealed, but which are necessary for the
guidance of man. The Qur’ān thus claims to contain all the good points of other
sacred books, and, in addition, to supply their deficiencies. The addition of the word
qayyimah, or right, to kutub, is to show that the Holy Book is freed from all the
errors which crept into other sacred books."
The Maulana's claim that whatever is "necessary for the guidance of man" is to be
found in the Qur’ān, may be tested
1
cp. The Moslem World Quarterly, 1917, pp. 420-23.
in the light of one matter of supreme importance. While on nearly every one of its 328
pages the New Testament makes mention of Jesus Christ, yet were we to assemble all the
references to Him in the Qur’ān, of whatever kind, the lot would only fill some six pages.
Again, fully one-fourth of each of the four gospels is devoted to the graphic story of the
arrest, trial, scourging, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of this same Jesus—
and the Qur’ān? it reproduces no part of that whole narrative which so moves the heart of
man; while it denies outright that He really died on the cross.
But let the reader consider what such omission really involves. Many Muslims are
thrusting aside the one and only authentic account of that supreme revelation of the
Redeeming Love of God in action, by deluding themselves into thinking that the essence
of the New Testament is in the Qur’ān.
The question, however, which we have been debating at length in this chapter,
viz.: the integrity and authority of the Scriptures, can, and should, be determined on quite
other grounds than those we have been obliged to examine. The intrinsic worth of the
Bible will ever rest in its contents, and in the appeal which the Divine message therein,
especially in the New Testament, makes to the mind and heart of man. We can safely
leave the issue to the Bible itself and to its Divine Interpreter, the Holy Spirit; for we
know that God has spoken, and yet speaks to man there, as in no other book.
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Muir, The Coran, S.P.C.K., 1878.

Sale, The Koran, first pubd., 1734.
Rodwell, The Koran (Everyman's), 1861.
Palmer, The Koran (World's Classics), 1900.
Wherry, Commentary on the Quran, 4 vols. (Trübner), 1882.

Muhammad Ali, The Holy Quran with Commentary, Woking, 1917.
Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran with Commentary, Lahore, 1934.
Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq, in English, R.T.S., 1910.
Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, S.P.C.K., 1919.
Rice, Crusaders of the Twentieth Century, C.M.S., 1910.
Goldsack, The Bible in Islam, C.L.S. Madras, 1912.
— Muhammad and the Bible, do.1915.
Gairdner, The Verse of Stoning, do. 1910.
Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas, Clarendon Press, 1907.
Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1911.
— The Story of the Bible, Murray, 1936.
The Moslem World Quarterly.
Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Mohomedan Commentary on the Bible, Ghazeepore, 1862.
— The Seventh Discourse (from preface of same) C.L.S. Madras, 1910.
Proof of Mohammad from the Bible, Mohammedan Tract Depot, Lahore, 1891.
Anwar-ul-Haqq, Abrogation in the Koran, Meth. Pub. House, Lucknow, 1925.
Sell, Qadiani Commentary on the Quran (Qadian), C.L.S., 1918.
— Criticism of a Qadiani Commentary (Woking), C.L.S., 1923.
CHAPTER
II
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
If the Bible were really inspired it would not contain such variations of reading
and discrepancies as are found in the manuscripts (pp. 46 and 51).
The gospels cannot be accepted as trustworthy because they were not written
down from the dictation of Jesus Christ himself, but passed through a period of oral
transmission before being finally committed to writing (p. 51).
Why do not Christians keep the Law of Moses? (p. 50).
Why are there four gospels? (p. 51).
The British and Foreign Bible Society practically admit the corruption of the
Bible, or are ready still to corrupt it, by periodic publications of corrected or revised
English versions, e.g. 1911 and 1924 (p. 45).
CHAPTER II
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION
There is, however, another aspect of this controversy about the Books which
requires separate treatment. The Muslim affects to belittle the importance of the Bible by
holding it to be something essentially inferior to the Qur’ān, when viewed from the
standpoint of Revelation and Inspiration, as he understands those phenomena. In seeking
to make clear to ourselves his point of view in these matters we shall have occasion in
this chapter to consider,
(1) the particular belief of Muslims regarding the Qur’ān;
(2) their criticism of the form of the Christian Scriptures;
(3) what it is that makes the Christian view of God's method of revelation at once
more reasonable and more precious.
I
THE MUSLIM POINT OF VIEW
Kalām, speech, according to orthodox theologians, is one of the eternal attributes

of Allah, and as such has no beginning and is never interrupted. That being so,
Revelation, or the activity of the speaking of Allah, cannot have arisen through a special
act of His creative will, but itself exists from all eternity. From this it follows that Allah's
Book of Revelation, the Qur’ān, is uncreated; and this is what the Muslim ordinarily
understands by "inspired scripture".
In theory it is believed that Allah reveals His truth in two main ways, as will
become evident from a consideration of the meaning attached to the terms ilhām and
wahīi.
I. Ilhām, literally "causing to swallow or gulp down", is defined as that form of

revelation which is granted to men individually, when knowledge is, as it were, cast into
their minds, cp. 91: 8.
The most important, but by no means exclusive, use of this term is in connection
with the Islamic doctrine of saints; they, in particular, are the recipients of such revelation
because their hearts are purified to receive it.1 More precisely, ilhām differs from ‘ilm
aqlī, knowledge acquired by human reason, in that it cannot be gained by deduction or
through meditation. It is knowledge communicated suddenly for the most part—how,
whence or why, the recipient does not know. It is a pure gift from God, granted for the
instruction of that particular individual.
2. Wahī, literally "sending", or "writing" a message, is the term used for the
superior means of communication between God and the prophets, and is granted either
direct as in the case of ilhām, or through a voice that is heard, or by means of a
messenger, usually an angel. That which distinguishes this mode when used expressly of
prophets, from ilhām, is the fact that the angel messenger can be seen by the prophet.2
Moreover, the message so conveyed to the prophet must, of necessity, be communicated
by him to men. Thus,
"It is not for any mortal that God should speak to him except by revelation
(wahī), or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal, by His
permission, what He will", 42: 50-1.
1
Among the Sufis the term in common use for this apprehension of divine truth is kashf, illumination;
see The People of the Mosque, p. 147.
2
cp. D. B. Macdonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p. 253; also Encyc. of Islam, art. ilhām,
Vol. II, 468; and art. wahy, Vol. IV, 1093.
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 39
This is the locus classicus for the orthodox Islamic view of revelation and
inspiration. Three modes are here indicated: (1) wahī in its simplest form, where it is
practically synonymous with ilhām. Instances of this occur at 28: 6; 8: 12; and 5: 111; (2)
where the words are heard by the person spoken to as if from behind a veil; (3) where a
messenger, an angel, is chosen by God to deliver His message.
It is further believed that all such utterances proceeding from saint or prophet are
something reflected on their hearts from lauhu’l mahfūz, the Preserved Tablet, on which
is engraved all that God has decreed for all time, before time was, 85: 22. Man's heart is
so equipped, in fact, that the revelation can be disclosed in it as in a mirror. Ordinarily the
veil of sense hangs heavily between, but by the wind of God's favour it may be blown
aside and the reflection takes place.
While dreams and visions are associated with the form of revelation described in
the biographies of Muhammad,1 yet in the Qur’ān, as just indicated, revelation is said to
have taken place by audition, e.g.
"Do not move thy tongue thereby to hasten it (i.e. the revelation). It is for Us
to collect it and to recite it; and when We have recited it, then follow its recital. And
again it is for Us to explain it", 75: 16-19; cp. also 20: 113.
The anxiety of Muhammad "that the warning should be given immediately in

plain words" is met with the rejoinder that he should not make haste but remain content
with what God chooses to reveal to him from time to time. In short, all he is asked to do
at the time is to listen.
And thus it comes about that Muslims believe that the very words now found
between the two covers of the Our'an,
1
cp. Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddama, p. 102ff. Cairo ed. 1329 AH. For a summary of the particulars see
Encyc. Islam, art. wahy.
revealed in time to Muhammad, have existed and been decreed from eternity. More
emphatically, they are the very words of God Himself, albeit in Arabic. Not the ideas
alone but the words themselves, their spelling and grammar, are all God's own and God's
alone. Further, the whole collection of these writings was brought down, in the time of
Muhammad, from its place near God's throne, on lailatu’l qadr, the night of power, 97: 1,
in the sacred month of Ramadhān, to the lowest heaven, 2: 181. There it was stored up
until Gabriel began to recite it "piecemeal", as occasion required, to Muhammad;
cp. "The infidels say, ‘Why has not the Qur’ān been sent down to him all at once'? But in
this way would We stablish thy heart by it; in parcels have We parcelled it out to
thee", 25: 34.
Statements are still made, from time to time, even by modern Muslim writers, in
support of this extreme orthodox view of both revelation and inspiration. Here are a few:
"The Musalmans look upon the Qur’ān as the Word of God, pure and intact
to the minutest vowel-point."1
"The Holy Word of God is one which far transcends human faculties, and is
characterized by perfection, power and holiness"……"The first condition for the
revelation of the Word of God is that human faculties should be in a state of
abeyance and inaction. There should be no thinking, no reflection, and man should
be like one dead. All means should be cut off, and God, Who has a real and actual
existence, should send down His words on the heart of the same one by His special
will."2
"By Scripture the Muslim understands the revelation that descends upon the
prophets, which they and their followers are bound to follow. It is mostly the verbal
inspiration that flows upon the recipient in a state of passivity, when all other outer
faculties are held in abeyance. Revelation (i.e. such
1
The Light, Lahore, 8 Feb., 1932.
2
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, in Barrāhīn-i-Ahmadiyya.
as this) alone can make a recipient immune from error, for it suspends for the time being all
mental activity of the person upon whom the Word of God descends."1
The following statement, reasonable enough so far as it goes, alludes to the

existence of a more radical view among Muslims. A correspondent had sought an
explanation for Muhammad's "supernormal condition at the time of receiving a revela-
tion". The reply given was this:
"The supernatural state of the Prophet at the time of revelation was

due to the strain involved in the process of detachment from the physical
environment………….Among Muslims, too, there is a school of thought
which reduces revelation to a human affair, by characterizing it as the inner
voice arising out of the depths of the recipient's own heart. Such a view
knocks the very bottom out of Islam, and the Qur’ān, rather than be the Word
of God, becomes the word of the Prophet. Revelation comes from outside,
though its receptacle, the heart of man, is inside man……This difference is
vital. For, the view that revelation is an inner voice reduces religion to a man-
made affair and as such naturally loses its authority and dynamic force."2
II
THE MODERN MUSLIM ATTITUDE TO THE SCRIPTURES
Thus convinced of the unique nature of the Qur’ān, the Muslim seeks, further, to
argue for its superiority over the Bible by criticizing the form of the latter. He observes,
for instance, that the Qur’ān is homogeneous—every word of it falls within the category
of Qāl Allāhu, "Allah hath said"; whereas, on the face of it, the New Testament, let us
say, is not the Book Allah gave to Jesus, because he finds there, not what God said to
Jesus, but what Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or John has to say about what Jesus did and
said, where He
1
The Review of Religions, Qadian, December, 1931.
2
The Light, July, 1935.
went, what people said to Him, and what He replied, what His disciples did, and so forth.
All this to the Muslim is not "scripture", as he understands it, but hadīth, tradition.
This attitude can be readily illustrated by a few quotations from the press of to-
day:
"The Muslim believes in pre-Islamic revelation, but he does not believe that
the Christian Bible is the actual word of God……He still believes that Jesus or
Moses were the direct recipient of divine revelation. What he contends is that the so-
called Christian Scriptures, especially the N.T., do not deserve the title of revealed
or inspired Scriptures in the sense he is accustomed to regard revealed Scriptures per
se. And he has justification……That the Gospels are not at all inspired books in any
sacred sense, but merely human composition, is clear from internal
evidence……Take, for instance, the introductory verses of Luke wherein he says
that, being influenced by the attempts of others to record the primitive tradition of
Christianity……he essays the same task, and having taken pains to collect, examine,
sift, and arrange the contents of the written and oral tradition, presents the result to
Theophilus……He does not claim any divine origin for it. He is inspired by the
example of many others……There is no question of a divine gift or the Holy Spirit
inspiring him."
The writer then turns to the question of the purity of the text and says:
"If ever a Muslim happens to point out the interpolations and pious frauds he
is merely told that that does not detract from the sacred character of these
writings……(The Muslim however) is of the opinion that such additions and
deletions have robbed these books of their historic character……There is not a shred
of evidence to prove that any of the so-called Christian scriptures is of a revealed
nature, as revelation is understood in the religious sense. There is nothing of
inspiration, much less of revelation about them. They are man-made things, written
with diverse motives."1
1
Review of Religions, Qadian, December, 1931.
"The Christian missionaries accept and declare the Bible to be the revealed
Word of God. This assertion lacks proof and substance, because one fails to find in
the Bible much that would lead him to think of its authenticity……The internal
evidence of the Old Testament and New Testament, and also their style and
composition, prove them to have been the production of ignorant persons, who
possessed queer notions of morality, instead of having emanated from an all-wise
and perfect Being."
Again, in reference to the text, it is said: "These mistakes and errors may be
regarded as negligible, trifling and very common in the writings of uninspired men,
but not in the writings of men who claim to be inspired……In view of these
inconsistencies could the Bible be regarded as a Revealed Book?......Its votaries
seem to have realized the supreme fact that either the text of the Bible must be
radically altered or Christianity is doomed. This is why extensive alterations are
made in it every now and then, and we have ‘revised' editions and 'old' editions."1
Further, complaint is made that Christian missionaries do not understand the

essential Muslim point of view regarding the Bible. The writer first quoted above
declares that this view is summed up in the words of the Qur’ān at 2: 73, which, to suit
his immediate purpose, he translates thus:
"Woe to those who write the manuscripts with their own hands and then
ascribe them a divine origin".2 He then proceeds, "It is not merely this or that verse
that is objectionable in the Muslim eye; it is the whole mass of the so-called
Christian Scriptures that fall under the condemned category. The Muslim absolutely
rejects their inspired or revealed character. He regards them as story books, half
historical and half legendary, with no pretension to divine authority."3
1
Review of Religions, Qadian, August, 1934.
2
See discussion of this verse above, p. 8.
3
Review of Religions, Qadian, December, 1931.
Similarly Muhammad Ali, commenting on the words,
"Do you then hope that they (the Jews) would believe in you?, and a party
from among them indeed used to hear the word of Allah, then altered it after they
had understood it, and they know (this)," 2: 70, says: "The meaning of this verse is
that the Muslims in vain hoped that the Jews would believe in their Prophet, for they
were a people who altered even that which they believed to be the Divine revelation
to make it suit their own ends, so there was little hope of their turning penitently to a
new revelation. That the Israelites did not preserve their sacred books in their purity
is a constant charge laid by the Qur’ān against the Jews, who never disputed its
truth, for if they had, the Qur’ān would surely have mentioned their arguments, as it
has done in so many other cases."
As we have already shown, the Jews had no need to dispute this charge because
the Qur’ān does not make it, but they did repeatedly dispute the other, viz.: that they were
"altering the meaning" of passages in their Scriptures, and this commentator himself
admits as much in his note on 2: 95. He continues:
"In fact, the alteration and corruption of the various books of the Bible is
now proved beyond all doubt, and thus recent investigation has laboriously arrived
at the conclusion which was announced by the Holy Qur’ān thirteen hundred years
ago.”
But, we repeat, it is a gross anachronism to read into the words of the Qur’ān the
idea that Muhammad was acquainted with minute details about the state of the text of
Scripture which, in fact, have come to light only recently after expert scrutiny of a mass
of very early documents, the very existence of some of which was not even known to the
world at the time of Muhammad.
* * * *
Before setting forth the Christian view of revelation and the sense in which we
believe the Biblical writers to be inspired,
it will be well to deal with the insinuation that "revised" editions of the Scriptures in
English, and fresh translations of these revisions into other languages, are a desperate
resort to which Christians are driven for the reason that the text of the Bible is hopelessly
corrupt and unreliable.1 On the contrary, the need for periodic revision of translations is
readily accounted for by the fact that there is constant growth and development taking
place in living languages. For instance, as the English of the Authorized Version was an
advance on that of William Tyndale, so that of the Revised Version aims at replacing
archaisms in the Authorized Version with more modern equivalents.
But there are two further reasons which, in the very nature of a scholarly study of
the sources of the Scriptures, necessitate such a course. These were operative at the time
of the preparation of the Revised Version in 1885, viz.: (a) the revisers had access to far
earlier and more reliable MSS. than had the translators of the King James Bible in 1611,
and (b) they had a more accurate knowledge of the meaning of the original languages
than the earlier translators. Let us consider the following facts with regard to the New
Testament, as serving to confirm what we have just said.
The Authorized Version of 1611 is a translation of a Greek version issued in
1551, which was itself based on 15 ancient manuscripts, dating from 450 A.D. onwards.
But since 1611 a great number of additional manuscripts, both of the original Greek and
of early translations into Syriac, Latin, Coptic, etc. have been discovered and collected
from different parts of Europe and Asia, some dating back as early as the second
1
Students of the ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures are, it is true, in the habit of using the word
"corrupt" in describing the state of the text in various places; but this, as all scholars well know, is a very
different thing from saying that the said text has been corrupted.
century A.D. So that when expert scholars approached their task of revision in 1881–5
they were able to examine and compare, not 15, but more than 3,000 such manuscripts,
and the result of their painstaking work is our Revised Version. This Version has, in a
number of places, recovered the original Greek and also gives a more exact translation;
but nowhere have the changes affected any Christian doctrine.
So that when it is lightly stated that there have been wilful interpolations,
additions, deletions, even "pious frauds", and that these have "robbed the Scriptures of
their historical character", it is but right to remind ourselves that some of the most
eminent scholars of the Biblical text have emphatically declared that the very opposite is
the truth. Thus: "The absence of perceptible fraud in the origination of the various
readings now extant may, we believe, be maintained with equal confidence for the text
antecedent to the earliest extant variations; in other words, for the purest transmitted text"
……Further, "the books of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents
assuredly speak to us in every important respect in language identical with that in which
they spoke to those for whom they were originally written". That statement was made at
the time of the preparation of the Revised Version, in 1882.1
And in our day Sir Frederick Kenyon, formerly Director and Chief Librarian of
the British Museum, London, speaking of the still closer knowledge we have of the
original text through the thousands of documents now in our possession, says: "The
variations of text are entirely questions of detail, not essential substance". It is because
that is undeniably true that we would stress the point he next makes, viz.: "It may be
disturbing to some to part with the
1
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introd., Vol. 1, p. 284.
conception of a Bible handed down through the ages without alteration and in
unchallenged authority; but it is a higher ideal to face the facts, to apply the best powers
with which God has endowed us to the solution of the problems which they present to us;
and it is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all
this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our
conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of
God".1
III
THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF GOD'S METHOD OF
REVELATION
Much of the difficulty in this long drawn-out controversy about the Books is due
to the fact that many people, both Christians and Muslims, fail to recognize that the Bible
and the Qur’ān belong to quite different types of literature. Certain features in both make
this fact quite evident.2
The Bible is the product of the work and thought of many authors; whereas
throughout the Qur’ān, a single volume, we observe the working of one mind, that of
Muhammad.
Again, the Bible is a veritable library of many books—the literature, in fact, of a
complete nation, in which is recorded its growth and development through a period of a
thousand years and more. The Qur’ān, on the other hand, is the product of the lifetime of
a single man, and was written within the space of some thirty years.
Moreover, the Books are quite differently regarded by those who possess and
cherish them. As we have already made
1
The Story of the Bible, pp. 136, 144.
2
The writer gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness for much in the following paragraphs to the
columns of The Epiphany, Oxford Mission, Calcutta.
clear, the Qur’ān is believed by Muslims to be, in no sense whatever, the work of man,
but the very words of God. Christians, on the contrary, do not look upon the Bible as the
actual words of God coming to earth without any human intermediary, but, as the
revelation of God to men through the medium of human minds.
There is yet one further, and fundamental, fact which is apt to be overlooked in
the stress of argument, and that is this—a whole world of philosophy lies between
Christianity and Islam, a philosophy which proclaims God's Nature and His interest in
mankind and tells of His plan to redeem the world in the Person of the Man Jesus. In
other words, while Muslims believe in truth Divinely revealed, Christians believe in a
specific act of Divine Self-Revelation. It is rather of these things that the present volume
will speak, and it is about these that the two religions are most at variance.
****
For the present, however, we are concerned to enunciate certain principles which,
in our belief, should, and do, underly all real Revelation and Inspiration.1 We arrive at
these from a consideration of certain facts to which the Scriptures themselves bear
witness.
I. The Bible, as already indicated, covers a wide range in time; and during many
centuries "the Word of the Lord came" to a variety of people, in a variety of ways. The
recipients were men of different temperament, education and outlook. Some were
herdsmen, some statesmen, some historians, some mystics, and a few, theologians. Con-
sequently we have in the Bible a varying literature; including law, history, poetry, and
philosophy.
1
We understand by "revelation", the essential content of the Divine message, and by "inspira-tion", the
process by which God lays hold of man for the delivery of that message.
2. And, of course, the Bible was written by men; it did not fall from heaven, nor
was it transcribed by angels in the sky before being brought to earth. In other words, God
condescended to use man for the purpose of revealing His truth to others. Consider some
of the implications of this fact:—
(a) God used man as man, not as a gramophone. He revealed His Word, through
an inner ear, to the mind of His messenger, who then clothed it in the garb
of his mother-tongue. For God's purpose the accent, grammar, or
scholarship of the man did not so much matter. What He required in His
messenger was the throbbing heart, the flashing eye, the soul burning with
devotion to God and man.
(b) Some of the ideas in the earlier books are simple, childish, crude; in the
words of one of the detractors quoted above, they are "the productions of
ignorant persons, who possessed queer notions of morality". Quite so, but
it was the best the messenger, at the time, could make of what God was
endeavouring to reveal. God was not limited in Himself, but He was
limited by the undeveloped mental, moral and spiritual outlook of His
messengers.
(c) Moreover, God chose these men, they were not self-appointed. Far from
thinking themselves equal to the task, many of those whom God called be-
sought Him to release them from this "burden", for which they felt
themselves mentally and morally unequal. Of such were Moses (Exod. 2:
12; 4: 10), Isaiah (Is. 6: 5), Jeremiah (Jerem. 1: 6), and Jonah. God laid
hold of these men so that they felt themselves to be under a Divine
Compulsion—"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me", said the prophet
Isaiah; and Paul exclaimed, "Woe is me, if I preach not the Gospel"!
(d) Further, God's Spirit came to these men at various crises in their lives—in
joy, in sorrow, in doubt, in despair, in the confidence of faith, and in the
fierce struggle with temptation; in fact, while His great work of character-
building was still in progress within them.
It is clear, therefore, that they were men with like weaknesses and passions as
ourselves—imperfect instruments—yet, by "putting words in their
mouth", by "touching their unclean lips", by "purging away their sin", by
"making His grace abound to them", God fitted these men for the task He
required of them. Thus did He raise them above their fellows in spiritual
insight and understanding, in moral character and influence.
The Bible repeatedly testifies to the fact that these men became, and were
known to be, "men of God". And just because it was God Himself who
was revealing His truth through them, we find that, at times, some of
them spoke more than they fully understood, cp. Isaiah, 53.
3. This being the case, it becomes an instructive study to observe in the Bible
definite progress in the nature and quality both of the messengers and of the messages
proclaimed by them. The earlier revelations are thus seen to be not so much untrue, as
immature. This applies to various social and political laws prescribed in the time of
Moses for the people of Israel—they were of temporary value. On the other hand, the
obligations attendant upon moral and spiritual laws,
wherever found in the Bible, remain, for the simple reason that these are changeless and
eternal.
Along with progress we also find variety in the messages revealed by God
through the men He inspired. Well-known examples of this may be cited from the New
Testament. For instance, we have in the Gospel narratives, four separate, though not
independent, accounts of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. These while agreeing in all
essential particulars were obviously meant to appeal to different types of people and,
when taken together, supplement and enrich each other.
Again, in the writings of the three apostles, Peter, John and Paul, we perceive the
work of three different types of mind, each placing on record the truth about Christ, as
God made it clear to him through his own personal experience. In this case also, we find
the epistles of one writer supplementing those of the others.
4. Within these limits, we likewise observe God's over-ruling care in the
recording, preservation and transmission throughout the centuries, of these ancient
Scriptures. In this connection we need to remind ourselves of what we have already said,
that for this task God used men; not faultless men, much less angels. When, then, our
Muslim friends sometimes profess to treat the Bible as unauthentic and untrustworthy
because there occur in the manuscripts in our possession variations in the text, it is well
for us, as for them, that we frankly face certain facts:
(a) The most conscientious scribe in the world, whether copying from a
manuscript before him, or writing at the dictation of another, may blunder,
through the mishearing or mis-rendering of a word, clause or sentence, as
also through omission, addition or repetition. Such errors, we freely admit,
did occur in the work of copyists of the Biblical manuscripts, and we
honestly record and com-
pare all these in whatsoever documents they occur. Far from destroying any
we carefully preserve them in the belief that, by studying all of them, we get
steadily nearer to the original text. Even so, there is no discrepancy in any
matter of vital importance, nor do we fear that any ancient manuscript that
may yet be discovered will upset that conviction.
(b) On the other hand, it is on record that in the very early days of Islam the
different manuscripts of the Qur’ān in use in Arabia presented variations of
such a nature as to disturb gravely those who believed in the literal and
verbal inspiration of the Book. The Khalifa 'Uthmān, in 644 A.D., took the
most drastic step to remedy this scandal. He ordered all the extant copies to
be collated and compared, and a standard authorized version to be prepared
from these, and finally had all the variant versions burnt. That is something
the Christian Church has never done.
And now, in conclusion—underlying all that we have been saying about the
Bible, its revelation and inspiration, there is to be seen a profound principle. It is that
there exists a real kinship between God and man; it is this that makes possible the
translation of the Eternal Thought into the language of time. In other words, God's
revelation is always found to be intimately linked up with man's experience of Him. This
is something that offers striking contrast to the dualism in Islam, which makes Allah to be
"altogether Other".
Again, observe what is here implied: there can be no Divine revelation without
the co-operation, in some degree, of the mind of man. Contrary to the expressed
statements of some modern Muslims, we hold that the spirit of inspiration
cannot, and does not, function in a vacuum.1 Moreover, the message that is meaningless
for the recipient is also valueless, and it is contrary to reason either that God should stun
or overwhelm the mind of the messenger at the time of imparting His revelation, or that
the man "should be like one dead" when receiving it.
Any communication from God to man must be made within the limitation of
man's faculties, because, coming through such a channel, it can the better be received and
assimilated by the human minds to which it comes. Even so, it remains true that whatever
deserves the name of Revelation is God's disclosure, not man's discovery; for it is some-
thing outside man's normal circle of reasoning.
And God's supreme disclosure is the disclosure of Himself in the Man Jesus.
While to the Muslim the true revelation is to be found in a Book, the Qur’ān, to the
Christian it is not to be found in the Bible, but in the Person of Christ. Other and earlier
channels of God's revelation in the Bible were imperfect instruments, but Jesus, the Son,
is the perfectly adequate expression of the Father.
"And so the Word had breath, and wrought

With human hands the creed of creeds
In loveliness of perfect deeds,
More strong than all poetic thought."2
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Paterson Smyth, How we got our Bible, Sampson Low.

— How God inspired the Bible, do. 1910.
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introd. Macmillan, 1882.
1
Tor Andrae, art. Muhammad’s Doctrine of Revelation, The Moslem World Quarterly, July, 1933, p.
252.
2
Tennyson, In Memoriam.
Horton, R. F., Verbum Dei, Unwin, 1893.

Sanday, The Oracles of God, Longmans, 1905.
Camfield, Revelation and the Holy Spirit, Elliot Stock, 1933.
Rabbi Geiger, Judaism and Islam, trans. S.P.C.K., 1898.
Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, S.P.C.K., 1906.
Macdonald, D. B., The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, Chicago, 1908.
Gairdner, Inspiration, C.L.S. Madras, 1909.
Goldsack, The Bible in Islam. C.L.S. Madras, 1922.
Sell, The Recensions of the Qur’ān, C.L.S. Madras, 1909.
— Inspiration, S.P.C.K.
Muhammad Ali, Has any Book been revealed by God, if so which? Lahore.
Ghulam Ahmad, The Teachings of Islam, Lahore, 1921.
The Review of Religions, monthly, London and Qadian.
The Islamic Review, monthly, Woking and Lahore.
CHAPTER
III
THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
[Blank page]
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"Does any verse in the Bible teach that Jesus Christ is God?" (p. 79).
"The fact that Jesus called himself the Son of God does not serve as any evidence
of his actually being the Almighty God" (p. 79).
"There is nothing in Jesus above an ordinary human being, which may lead us
even for a moment to entertain the idea that he was God" (pp. 75, 78-9).
"Never, in any critically well-attested saying is there anything which suggests that
his (Jesus') conscious relation to God is other than that of a man towards God" (pp. 66-7).
"Christ only used the word ‘Father' in the sense that God is the only Fatherly
Protector, and likewise the word ‘son' as a term of affection"—that is, in a sense in which
"all other men are sons of God" (pp. 71, 77-8).
"To attribute a son to the Divine Being in a literal sense is to attribute an
imperfection to Him which is met with in human beings" (pp. 65-6).
"The Christians say the Lord Jesus is the Son of Allah—is Allah male or female?
If male, has Allah a wife that He should have a son"? (p. 65).
"It (the idea that God should have a ‘son') is merely a relic of pagan and
anthropomorphic superstitions" (p. 70).
"The belief in God begetting a son lowers God to the level of an animal."
"His (Jesus') deification was an after-thought on the part of his admirers" (pp. 67-
8, 79).
"Wherever there is contradiction there must be falsehood. God cannot be both
infinite and limited" (pp. 72-3, 76).
"The coming of God into the limited human form is a degradation of Him, and the
conception is absurd and impossible" (pp. 68-9, 73-4, 76).
"Communion is not attained by bringing down God to man in the sense of
incarnation, but by man rising gradually
towards God by spiritual progress and the purification of his life" (pp. 71, 78).
"It is absurd to say that if we are to realize divinity we must clothe Him with flesh
and invest Him with the form and attributes of humanity, so as to bring Him within the
reach of our thought and sympathy" (pp. 70, 74, 76).
"The life of an individual, however holy and pure, is an inadequate and, indeed,
impossible medium for the expression of the life of God. His attributes are infinitude,
omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence" (pp. 71-2, 75-6).
"The claim to Divinity is the deadliest sin and the greatest outrage upon the
sanctity of God's name."
Christ "was only a vessel through which some of the excellent qualities or
attributes of God were manifested……this did not make him divine" (p. 79).
"If Jesus was God then to whom used he to pray? (pp. 73-4) .
“Christ's words, ‘My father is greater than me', Jo. 14: 28; and ‘I do not know,
only God knows', Mk. 13: 32—these and other verses prove that Christ was not God"
(pp. 74-5).
“If God is such a weak and frail being as Jesus the son of Mary was, we are better
alone. We can do without him."
"To find you crying out to one who was only a man, as though he were God,
makes our hearts shudder."1
1
See also Appendix E I.
CHAPTER III
THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST
Notwithstanding their constant assertion that they respect Jesus Christ quite as
much as Christians do, Muslims are quick to repudiate the unique claims which we make
for Him. Jesus, "Son of Mary"—as the Qur’ān repeatedly calls Him—is for them only
one of the prophets, and even so, not the last nor the best, cp. 43: 59; 5: 75.
Loyalty to Muhammad and a natural preference for him are, in themselves,
sufficient reasons for their refusing to give to Jesus the name that is above every name.1
But there is more; there is a kind of "jealousy for God", as they understand Him, that
provokes them to denounce as blasphemy any honour paid to Christ which, in effect,
makes Him to be more than a man, more than a prophet, and so to encroach on the
province of God.
Moreover, this jealousy is deeply rooted in the cardinal doctrine of Islam, tawhīd,
the Unity, which we find set forth with monotonous reiteration in the Qur’ān. As
Maulana Muhammad Ali says: "The Unity of God is the one great theme of the Holy
Qur’ān……There is absolute Unity in Divine nature; it admits of no participation or
manifoldness……(Islam) denies all plurality of persons in Godhead, and any
participation of any being in the affairs of the world……It refuses to acknowledge the
incarnation of the Divine Being".2
And, as though the insistence of the Qur’ān were, by itself, insufficient to imprint
this doctrine on the minds of Muslims,
1
cp. C. R. Watson, What is this Moslem World?, pp. 55-59 and 75.
2
Preface to The Holy Qur’ān, pp. viii, ix.
the offence of shirk, "associating a partner" with God, is declared therein to be the one
unpardonable sin,
"Verily, God pardons not associating aught with Him, yushraka bihi,
but He pardons anything short of that to whomsoever He pleases; but he who
associates aught with God, he hath devised a mighty sin". 4: 51, 116.
Mr. Yusuf Ali’s is translation is, "God forgiveth not that equals should be set up
with Him"; and comments: "Blasphemy in the spiritual kingdom is like treason in the
political kingdom……This is rebellion against the essence and source of spiritual Life";
and the Ahmadi writer explains: "The reference is to polytheism, or the setting up of gods
with Allah".
Now, it matters not that Christians might strongly protest against the application
of such crude language as this last to their view of Christ, yet the fact remains that in the
minds of Muslims we, too, come within the category of those so upbraided. And there
seems little doubt that here—in the constant reiteration of the doctrine of tawhīd, coupled
with the dreaded sin of shirk—we come upon the two main factors which so strongly
prejudice the minds of Muslims that they are not prepared to entertain any exposition of
the Deity of Christ, or any explanation of the Divine Incarnation. In particular, one
detects strong resentment in their attitude to our use of the terms "Son", and "Son of
God", with reference to Christ; it is not too much to say that, by giving to these terms the
connotation they do, Muslims positively abhor the doctrine of the Sonship of Christ.1
THE INFLUENCE OF THE QUR’ĀN
And inasmuch as the mind of man grows by what it feeds upon we must needs
turn again to the Qur’ān if we would estimate aright the influence of that Book in
producing and
1
cp. The People of the Mosque, p. 277 (Indian ed.).
THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST 61
perpetuating such strong feelings. We find that it not only gives pre-eminence to the
Unity of Allah, but repeatedly, and sometimes in the most vehement language, repudiates
the notion that Allah "has a son". Commenting on one of the verses referred to below,
Muhammad Ali states: "The Qur’ān refers to the error of attributing a son to the Divine
Being almost as frequently as to the doctrine of setting up idols with Allah", 39: 6.
It is customary to classify all such passages in two groups: (I) those that refer to
pagan Arabs, and (2) those referring to Christians.
Here are some belonging to the first group:

112: 1-4. "Say: He is God alone: God, the Eternal! He doth not beget, and He is not
begotten; and there is no one in His likeness at all."
Muhammad Ali says of this short chapter:

"It gives the sum and substance of the teachings of the Holy Qur’ān, which is
the declaration of the Unity of the Divine Being……All other objects are secondary as
compared with this. The chapter is one of the earliest revelations and contains a
refutation not only of idolatry and Christianity, but of every polytheistic doctrine."
Muhammad himself is credited with having declared that the above chapter "is
equal to a third of the Qur’ān".1
43: 81-2. "Say: ‘If the God of Mercy had a son, the first would I be to worship him: but
far be the Lord of the Heavens and of the Earth, the Lord of the Throne, from that
which they impute to Him!'
72: 3. "And He—may the Majesty of our Lord be exalted—hath no spouse, neither hath
He any offspring."
39: 6. "Had God desired to have a son, He had surely chosen what He pleased out of
His own creation. But praise be to Him! He is God, the One, the Almighty."
1
cp. Mishkatu'l-Masabih, Book VIII, Chap. I, Pt. 2, p. 508, Vol. I, Matthew's trans.
10: 69. "They say 'God hath begotten children'. No! by His glory, He is sufficient. All
that is in the Heavens and all that is in the Earth is His! Have ye any authority for
that assertion? What! speak ye of God that which ye know not"?
6: 100-1. "In their ignorance they have falsely ascribed to Him sons and daughters.
Glory be to Him! And high let Him be exalted above that which they attribute to
Him! Sole Maker of the Heavens and of the Earth! how, when He hath no consort,
should He have a son?
The following passages refer to Christians:
19: 35-36. "This is Jesus, the son of Mary; this is a statement of the truth concerning
which they doubt. It beseemeth not God to beget a son. Glory be to Him!
19: 91-93. "They say, 'The God of Mercy hath taken to Himself a son'. Now have ye
done a monstrous thing! Almost might the very Heavens be rent thereat, and the
Earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in fragments, that they ascribe a
son to the God of Mercy, when it beseemeth not the God of Mercy to beget a son!
2: 110. "They say, 'God hath a son': No! Praise be to Him! But—His, whatever is in the
Heavens and the Earth!
9: 31-2. "The Christians say, ‘The Messiah is a son of God'. Such are the sayings in
their mouths. They resemble the sayings of the infidels of old! God fight them!
How misguided they are!......Far from His glory be what they associate with Him."
5: 19. "They blaspheme indeed who say, 'Verily God is the Messiah, the son of Mary'.
Say: and who hath the least power against God, if He chose to destroy the Messiah,
son of Mary, and his mother, and all who are on the earth together?
5: 76. "They do blaspheme who say, 'God is the Messiah, son of Mary'."
The most cursory study of these verses leaves on the mind two clear impressions:
(a) the denunciations of the Qur’ān are hurled at Christians equally with pagan Arabs for
using such language in reference to God, and (b) the view of "sonship" underlying the
phrases is a grossly carnal one. The comments of so enlightened a Muslim as Mr. Yusuf
Ali, on some of the passages quoted in the second group, abundantly confirm the latter
impression in its reference to Christians: "Begetting a son is a physical act depending on
the needs of men's animal nature. God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is
derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him" (19: 35); "the belief in God begetting a
son is not a question merely of words or of speculative thought. It is a stupendous
blasphemy against God. It lowers God to the level of an animal" (19: 19); "if words have
any meaning, it would mean an attribution to God of a material nature, and of the lower
animal functions of sex” (2: 110).
As for the Arabs we know that they fully merited Muhammad's strictures. His
own townspeople the Meccans, among whom he spent over forty years of his life,
worshipped hundreds of blocks of stone, taking them to be male and female deities. A
caustic reference to them is made in an early Sura, "What! shall ye have male progeny
and God female? This were, indeed, an unfair division!" 53: 21-22.1
And what of the Christians? We can be sure that they would have spoken of Jesus
as the "Son of God", much as all Christians have from the first century until now. But
Muhammad, influenced on the one hand by the current blasphemous expressions of the
idolatrous Arabs, and on the other by the calumnies of the Jews who cast a slur on the
names of both Jesus and Mary, insisted that He be called Mary's "pure son".2 And for this
reason that, though he himself manifestly believed Jesus to have been supernaturally
born, yet still he could only speak of Him as a "son" in the physical sense. Muhammad
reprobated the use of such
1
One of the rare lapses in Palmer's excellent translation occurs at this place, and is retained in the latest
editions—viz. 'male offspring for God, female for you'. The reverse is correct.
2
cp. Qur’ān, 19: 19.
language as "Son of God", because it inevitably suggested to him carnal relationship. It is

all very well for modern commentators, like the two referred to above, to insinuate that
there would have been no objection to the use of such language had it been employed
metaphorically, since both Jews and Christians were known to call themselves "sons of
God" in the sense that they believed themselves to be specially beloved, or favoured, by
the Divine Being. Muhammad himself knew that, yet the fact remains—he seems to have
been incapable of attaching any other than a carnal signification to the name Christians
give to Christ.
ORIGIN AND REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PHRASE
Since such a gross conception of Christ's Sonship is no less offensive and

blasphemous to our minds, a solemn obligation rests upon us to try to explain to Muslims
what precisely we do mean when we speak of Jesus Christ as "the Son of God". How is it
that we have come to use this phrase, and what is our authority for so doing? Many of us
will be ready to confess that we have been accustomed to do so from childhood; the
words had already been incorporated into our religious vocabulary before we began to
consider their true import. That explains some of our embarrassment when we meet with
the contradiction of Muslims.
1. But we did not coin the phrase, nor has it crept into Christian usage in the
course of the centuries. It is something that we associate with the very origins of
Christianity. It is given to us in Scripture. We use it on the authority of the New
Testament.
Consider the following array of passages, by no means exhaustive:
God Himself called Jesus His "Son" at the Baptism, Mk. 1: 11 (Mt. Lk.); and at the
Transfiguration, Mk. 9: 7 (Mt. Lk.).
Gabriel declared Jesus would be called 'Son of God', Lk. 1: 35.
The Baptist gave Jesus that name, Jo. 1: 34.

So did the disciples of Jesus, Mt. 14: 33; 16: 16; Jo. 1: 49; 11: 27.
Jesus used it of Himself, Jo. 5: 25; 10: 36; 11: 4.
The enemies of Jesus used it, implying that He so called Himself, Mk. 14: 61; Mt. 26:
63; 27: 43; Lk. 22: 70; Jo. 19: 7. (The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by
that law he ought to die, because he made himself the 'Son of God'".)
The Apostle Paul so spoke of Him, Acts 9: 20; Gal. 2: 20; and often.
Other writers so referred to Him, Heb. 6: 6; I Jo. 2: 22; 4: 15 ('whosoever shall confess
that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God'), Rev. 2: 18.
There seems little doubt that Jesus used this phrase of Himself, or permitted its
use by others, or let it be understood as being appropriate and applicable to Himself,
because we find that the Jews repeatedly took up stones to stone Him for what they
considered blasphemous language on His part. And yet His offence, in their eyes, was not
so much that He called Himself "Son of God", as that by thus speaking, and by calling
God His "Father", He made Himself "equal with God" (Jo. 5: 18) and made Himself
"God" (Jo. 10: 33).
That, then, is the first thing to be said about the continuous and universal use of
this phrase in the Christian Church—we have scriptural authority for it; to be precise, the
authority of the New Testament.
2. We turn next to enquire how this language, Son of God, is used in Scripture.
(a) It goes without saying that in no place is the phrase employed in a carnal
sense, such as the Qur’ān has in view.
(b) Nor is it used as indicating that there is present to the minds of the speakers, or
writers, the thought of Jesus' birth as having taken place in a special or supernatural
manner. In other words, He is not called "Son of God" by virtue of the manner of His
birth; conversely, it is not His birth that makes Him "Son of God".
(c) The simple, and one would think obvious, fact is that the phrase serves as a
designation, a title. Only in Luke 1: 35 is it used in connection with the annunciation of
the birth of Jesus, and even there its significance is that of a name to be given to Him, the
"Holy One". As Bishop Gore has well said of this very passage: "Luke's narrative
suggests nothing more than that the child to be born was to be the promised Christ. 'Son
of the Highest', and ‘Son of God' would not, in the context, suggest anything more to
Jewish ears".1 In other words, it is, after all, symbolical language—a metaphor, and not to
be taken literally. Even so, of all the terms used for Christ it is the one which best does
justice to our experience of Him.2
(d) Furthermore, the phrase has a history. It was in use in pre-Christian times.
Gradually among the Jews the conception of the "Messiah" as also "Son", i.e. of God,
became part of a fixed tradition in the period immediately preceding the advent of Jesus.
We have indications of this in two places in the Psalms, Ps. 2: 7, "Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee"; and Ps. 89: 26-27, "I also will make him (my) firstborn".
Echoes of these passages are found in the opening verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
"He hath inherited a more excellent name than they", i.e. than prophets and angels. That
name is SON.
3. But there is much more to it than this Messianic colouring, prominent though
that was to the minds of Jesus and the Jews. In the New Testament the phrase contains
the very special idea that the consciousness of Jesus towards God was a truly filial
consciousness. God was to Him "Father"; He was to God "Son". To appreciate this point
at its full value we need to connect with the usage of
1
A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, S.P.C.K., p. 317.
2
cp. Son of David, Messiah, Son of Man, Lord, The Word.
the fall phrase "Son of God", that other long series of references in the gospels to God as
pre-eminently "The Father", and to Christ as pre-eminently "the Son". These two lines of
usage converge and help to establish the conclusion we seek to draw concerning the inner
significance of such language.
True, in the Synoptic gospels this filial relationship is felt as an underlying
supposition of the narrative rather than directly expressed in it. Yet, even in them, it is
occasionally expressly stated, cp. Mt. 11: 25-30, "No one knoweth the Son save the
Father; neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to
reveal Him".1 But in the Fourth Gospel the theme is given great prominence, and is
worked out in a variety of detail. Moreover, its author stresses the fact that the
relationship existed long before Jesus was born a babe in Bethlehem.
4. Still further significance attaches to this Name from the fact that the early
Church, following the apostles and most of all Paul, came to identify Jesus with the "Son
of God", and so spoke of Him, on the ground of what He achieved historically. As this
subject will be treated in detail in a subsequent chapter it need not detain us here. But
consider for a moment the terms in which Paul, for instance, refers to the One who has
wrought so great salvation for men: "The Son of God who loved me and gave Himself up
for me", Gal. 2: 20. He does not think of speaking of Jesus in this connection as "The
Messiah", or "Son of Man", or "The Word". Only the designation "Son of God" will
suffice. He and the rest were forced to name Him thus because of their experience; it
wasn't that they were predisposed to do
1
These words have been called "the greatest Christological passage in the New Testament" and are held
to belong to "the very oldest and safest strand of evidence".
so. To quote the late Bishop Gore again: "Belief in Him as ‘the Christ', as ‘Lord', and as
‘Son of God', was claimed by the original apostles on the ground of what they had
themselves seen and heard during their experience extending over all the time the Lord
Jesus moved among them. It was claimed also on the ground of their subsequent
experience of the Holy Spirit".1
THE PHRASE PREDICATES DEITY
It may seem to some that in all this explanation of its origin and meaning we are
merely exhibiting our anxiety to defend the continued use of an admittedly difficult
phrase, and that we might spend our time more profitably on some other topic. But we
surely realize, as the Muslim certainly does, that we have yet to address ourselves to the
stupendous claim which underlies this designation. At any rate it is true of the Muslim, as
of the Jew in the days of Jesus, that the full force of his protest is directed not so much
against this title "Son of God", as against the deeper implication of such Sonship, viz.:
that there is essential identity between the Father and the Son.
It is to this—the implied Deity of Christ, involving as it does the incarnation of
the Divine Being—that the Muslin takes the strongest exception. Allāh is lā-sharīk, i.e.
He "has no partner"; a dogma which is expounded to mean "He is singular, without
anything like Him; separate, having no equal". But now, if this belief of the Christians be
admitted, God would be "sharing" His Divine Glory with another; He would have a
"partner"—and that is a proposition which the Muslim declares to be both blasphemous
and impossible. "Islam refuses to acknowledge the incarnation of the Divine Being."
1
op. cit., p. 31. cp. J. R. Richards, What Manner of Man is This?
Yet here is something that is fundamental for Christian faith. We cannot ignore it,
much less can we repudiate it; for Christianity is what it is because of what we believe
Christ to be. But can we so state the truth about Him as to make it appear to the Muslim
less objectionable, less impossible for thought, and yet at the same time surrender no
essential part of it? That precisely is the task before us.
The Muslim's error, and his need, will become apparent if we approach the
exposition of this subject by way of his own deeply-rooted conviction about the
separateness of Allāh. Just as he says in the language of the Qur’ān, "It beseemeth not
God to beget a son", so might he retort on the Christian, "Far be it from the God of Mercy
to be found in fashion as a man". In other words, he considers it to be derogatory to the
Majesty of the Most High to become incarnate, even though it be for man's salvation.
One might even venture to express his point of view in some such extreme words as
these—rather let man "go to hell" than that God should become incarnate to save man
from hell.
But the Muslim, in thus seeking to safeguard the High and Lofty One from what
he deems derogation, is making at least one unwarranted assumption. He is persuading
himself that he knows the Mind of the Eternal. Knowledge of God we certainly have—
we perceive His wisdom, His power, His sublimity, even His benevolence—but it were
presumption to speak as though the view-point of Deity were our own. And yet, it is just
at this point that the Christian claims that he has definite knowledge of that Mind; due,
primarily, not to any discovery that man has made, but to a self-revealing act, in time, of
the Eternal God Himself.
WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY OF THE SONSHIP OF JESUS?
The world is so familiar with unchaste stories in pagan mythology about gods
disporting themselves with the
daughters of men, that it is not difficult to understand the prejudice that leads the Muslim
to suspect that we have here merely an adaptation from some grotesque legend. But those
stories, at best, are expressions of man's guesses about God, and foreshadowings of truth;
whereas we take Jesus to be, as one writer has put it, "the unique and essential
appearance of God in history".1
That phrase is worth pondering, because it holds the key to the "mystery" of the
Person of Jesus Christ. We account for Him by predicating an amazing act of God,
nothing less than a self-revelation of the Divine Nature. So that we believe Jesus to be the
real answer to man's perennial question, "What is God like"? He comes before us, not so
much as a problem, as the solution of a problem; for what we see in Him inspires in us a
profound and triumphant conviction that the Almighty God Himself, Maker of Heaven
and Earth, is, supremely and essentially, HOLY LOVE.
When, then, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of this "Son" as "the
radiance of God's Glory and the impress of His Essence"2 we are already in a position to
declare that the highest category which we can apply to that Divine "essence" is ethical.
Beholding as we do the love and trust and obedience which mark the life of the Son, we
infer that Holy Will and Loving Purpose are of the very essence of God Himself. Beyond
this it is profitless to discuss whether Jesus shared the "substance" of God. Here is all that
ultimately matters—the will of Jesus, as "Son", was one with the Will of God; not
partially, nor intermittently, nor yet in a metaphor, but identically one.
What we have been saying, however, proceeds on the assumption that the Unseen
and Eternal God cares sufficiently
1
H. R. Mackintosh, The Person of Christ, p. 431.
2
Ep. Heb. 1: 3.
for man as to act in the way we have indicated. Yet this, again, is something we here
affirm. The voice of conscience itself is proof to us that the Divine Spirit can and does
indwell man, while the lives of prophets and saints bear witness to the way in which
God's Spirit endues man with power and insight. This means that man is, by the creative
act of God, constituted to receive such Divine self-impartation. The quality and intensity
of the Divine indwelling depends, of course, upon the receptiveness of the individual.
Moreover, "there has been from the first a tendency or movement of Divine Love towards
self-expression within finite consciousness as must at length evoke faith and hope and
love in their fulness".1
But in the case of Jesus we observe this initial motion of the Divine
condescension towards the human, meeting with a perfect human response in order to
effect a revelation of the redemptive purpose of God. While prophets were equipped by
the Spirit of God for their vocation, that same Spirit sets forth Jesus in the fulness of His
humanity as the complete and final vehicle of the self-presentation of God in the human
sphere.
Sonship in His case, then, is not something which indicates His likeness to other
men, as though He were on their plane. Rather, "It is something which signalises His
distinction from them". It proclaims His incomparable and transcendent dignity, for He
was to God what no other can be. As has been truly said, "The root-element in the
consciousness of Jesus was a sense of ‘sonship' to the Divine Father, deeper, clearer,
more intimate, more all-embracing and all-absorbing than was ever vouchsafed to a child
of man". Any inferior being, indeed, could not enter so perfectly into the mind of God, or
reflect it so perfectly to man.2 That
1
H. R. Mackintosh, P.C., p. 434.
2
cp. Sanday, art. Son of God, Hastings, Dict. Bible.
precisely is His own claim, "No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him".1
HOW COULD THE ETERNAL GOD BE IN JESUS?
Yet, still, the Muslim maintains that it is an impossibility for thought that the
Maker of Heaven and Earth, the Lord of the Worlds, should be subject to any such
limitation as the Incarnation implies. The crudest form in which the objection has been
put may be stated thus: "Did God leave His throne and the rule of the worlds for those
thirty-three years when He was in Jesus?" It is recorded, for instance, that Ibn Hazm (d.
1153) accused the Jacobites of saying that, "Christ is God Most High Himself, and that
God Most High (so great is their blasphemy!) died and was crucified and was slain; and
that the world remained for three days without a ruler, and the firmament without a ruler;
then He rose and returned as He was before".2 One may well question whether the
Jacobites, or for that matter any Christians at any time, have expressed their belief about
the Incarnation so fatuously; but if they have, it should be said that it is a notion utterly
incongruous with the view of the Divine indwelling that we have put forward above.
Again we perceive that the Muslim's difficulty arises from a further unfounded
assumption on his part. Conceiving the Deity to be the Infinite and Self-Sufficient One,
he argues that it would be a contradiction of His very Nature were He to become, in any
way, incarnate. That is the position at which the mind of man is apt to arrive by a priori
reasoning; a conclusion to which he is forced by the very premiss he has laid down.
1
Mt. 11: 27.
2
cp. L. E. Browne, The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia, p. 73.
Yet all that we see in Jesus is an emphatic exposure of the fallacy in that kind of
reasoning; for He is to us the definite assurance, as we have said above, that the Mighty
God is, essentially, HOLY LOVE. As such, God has a boundless capacity for self-
determination. Were He other than that—were He to be defined, for instance, first and
last, as Power, then His "glory" might be sullied by an act of condescension; or were He,
supremely, Intelligence, He might hesitate to appear in lowly guise; or, again, were He
best described as Justice, then He might seek some other means to succour mankind; but
being Love, Holy Love, He does stoop to save, and, stooping, is not degraded.1
But then the Muslim turns to look, as we desire he should, at the life of Jesus as
recorded in the gospels, and again he is baffled by what he sees there. Where is the proof,
he asks, that God was in such a Jesus? He prays to God, Mt. 26: 39; He was tempted by
Satan, Mk. 1: 13; was disappointed at men's unbelief, Mk. 6: 6; sought information, Mk.
5: 30; manifested surprise, Mt. 8: 10; was weary and, by implication, thirsty, Jo. 4: 6-7;
He was mocked, spat upon, bufetted, Mt. 27: 30-31; He was crucified, dead and buried,
Mt. 27: 35, 50, 60. Reading all this the Muslim asks, could "the Everlasting God, the
Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faint and be weary?"2 Could He be tempted,
spat upon, killed? Is it not sheer blasphemy to speak of Him as being "captive, beaten,
bound, reviled"?
Moreover, the Muslim thinks he finds repudiation of the Christian assertion of the
Deity of Jesus in the very words of Jesus Himself, where He says, for instance, "I can of
myself do nothing", Jo. 5: 30; and, "Of that day and hour knoweth
1
cp. " If God is most truly known as Love, then the glory of God is chiefly seen in the activity of
Love". Archbishop Temple, Christus Veritas, p. 144.
2
Isaiah, 40: 28.
no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only”, Mt. 24: 36.
These, indeed, are features drawn from the known facts of the human life of
Jesus, and it is upon the recorded facts that we must proceed. But, now, what do these
features really denote? Two facts in particular.
I. That Jesus was fully and completely man, though that is not to say that He was
only man.
He was a Jew, living His life within a body that was “organic to His self-
consciousness”. He possessed limited power that was, at times, thwarted by persistent
unbelief. Likewise His knowledge, as we have remarked, was limited.1 His moral nature
was susceptible of growth, and was exposed to life-long temptation; while His very piety
and personal religion were marked at all times by dependence upon God. But this only
means that the Divine Life within Him found its expression through a truly human
nature.2
2. That which baffles the Muslim can, in part, be explained if, to what we have
already said, we now add that in Jesus we see "a Godhead self-reduced".3 For, since the
Almighty has a boundless capacity for self-determination, it follows that He also has the
power to bring His greatness down to the narrow measures of our human life. But in any
case, He could not put more into humanity than humanity will hold, so that this self-
limitation, this self-emptying of Deity, which we deduce from the facts of the human life
of Jesus, instead of being an impossible conception, becomes the first condition for
making any revelation at all. God must act "through the conditions
1
How unhistorical is the kind of uncanny knowledge with which He is credited in the Qur’ān, 3: 43;
and how contrary to fact are the words it makes Him say, "I know not what is in Thee (God)", 5: 116.
2
cp. H. R. Mackintosh, P.C., p. 469.
3
P. T. Forsyth, in The Person and Place of Jesus Christ.
supplied by humanity". This it is that explains the absence in Jesus of certain attributes
and functions which we rightly associate with the infinite glory of God the Absolute, viz.
omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and the like. These are utterly incompatible
with humanity, as such.1
Moreover, it is appropriate in Jesus, the Son, that He should manifest a sense of
subordination to the Father. Thus He declares, "The Father is greater than I", Jo. 14: 28;
and, "I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that
sent me", Jo. 6: 38. Nevertheless, He said, and said it because it was entirely true of
Himself, "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me", Jo. 4: 34. His whole being was
always set to do God's will.
And it is in the sense of all that has just been said that we should understand such
sayings of Jesus as, "I and my Father are One", Jo. 10: 30; and, "He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father", Jo. 14: 9. It was in this sense that He could say that His words and
works were the words and works of God, and it is this perfect identification with essential
Deity that gives the utmost significance to that other saying of His, "This is life eternal,
that they may know Thee, the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent", Jo.
17: 3; because, in the first place, to know Jesus is to know what God is like. And this
precisely is what we find; for the character, authority and love of Jesus are to us the
character, authority and love of God Himself.2
The self-revelation of God, then, in Jesus Christ, is in every way adequate to
human need. It is more; it is distinctive—there can be no uncertainty about the quality of
the life revealed; and it is decisive and final—we need not wait for more, because
revelation can go no further. Having said
1
cp. Archbishop Temple, C.V., p. 138.
2
cp. N. Micklem, in Mysterium Christi, p. 156.
that, however, we need not and indeed cannot claim that God is, in Jesus, exhaustively
revealed. It has been truly said, "In Christ, God is known as He actually is, yet in Him,
even so, there remain regions unknown, which faith can never exhaust……” That is the
tenor of Paul's adoring apostrophe, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding
out!", Roms. 11: 33.1 Let it not seem strange that we are forced to confess that our faith
holds fast to contradictories—God is known, and yet not known. After all, in the
revelation of Himself in Jesus we stand face to face with a profound mystery; it is not
surprising that we do not fully understand. Was it not Jesus Himself who said, "No one
knoweth the Son, save the Father"?, Mt. 11: 27.
Now, behind all this is a tremendous implication; one which, if the Muslin could
be persuaded to accept, would revolutionize his ideas about the Incarnation, viz.; that
between the human and the Divine, while there is contrast, there is also mutual affinity.
The Great God, the Everlasting Father, is kin to man! As the Scriptures declare, He has
made man in His own image, after His own likeness.2 From this it follows that man is
susceptible of God; capable of receiving Him and responding to Him. That is something
that immensely heightens our conception of man and adds dignity and solemnity to life.
Besides which, it is a refutation of the altogether unfounded notion that the lowliness of
our human life is incongruous with Godhead.
For this truth, also, we are indebted to Jesus; because if it is true, as we most
certainly believe, that it is only in Him that we get a clear vision of God, it is no less true
that it is
1
H. R. Mackintosh, The Christian Apprehension of God, p. 73.
2
Genesis, 1: 26.
only in Him that we have a clear vision of Man—but with this difference; "the nature that
is in all men akin to Deity becomes in Christ a nature in personal union with the Deity".1
So that we really see in Jesus a new creation, the Perfect Man, a Divine-Humanity.
BUT why SHOULD GOD BECOME INCARNATE?
This, too, is a form of objection that obtrudes itself in discussions with Muslims.
It suggests an attitude of mind comparable to certain marked prejudices in the ancient
world with which the early Christian Church had seriously to contend. The typical
Muslim stands, like the Hebrew, for the sheer transcendence of God, and like the Greek,
for a kind of Divine apathy towards all suffering.2 Such deep-seated prejudice can only
be removed by seeing and believing the revelation of God in Christ; and, in particular,
His Glorious Redemptive Purpose. How far many a Muslim is from appreciating this is to
be seen in the remark made by an educated Indian Muslim in England, several years ago:
"I, for one, would rather be an atheist than accept a God whose character and attributes
received their epiphany in the manger and the cross".3 That, in reality, is a protest against
the conception of the character of the God so revealed; it makes no attempt to consider
the PURPOSE for which such means were employed.
It is to that glorious purpose that we shall now address ourselves. No words can
express it more clearly than those of Paul, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
Himself", 2 Cor. 5: 19; that is to say, in and through Christ
1
Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, p. 475.
2
cp. Archbishop Temple, CV., pp. 129-130.
3
The late Khwaja Kamal-ud-din, at the Heretics Club, Cambridge, 27 April, 1913; quoted in Muslim
India, I, 4.
we are to be delivered from sin and united to God. The life and teaching of Jesus Himself
amply confirm this, e.g. "The Son of Man has come, not to be ministered unto, but to
minister—to seek and to save the lost—and to give His life a ransom for many"; "Come
unto Me and I will give you rest", Mt. 20: 28; Lk. 19: 10; Mt. 11: 28. And since there can
be no saving without suffering, the Incarnation tells of the Divine sacrifice on man's
behalf, reaching its consummation in the Cross. That is why the life of the Saviour of
men was one of poverty, suffering and humiliation, but it ended in a triumphant Death
and a glorious Resurrection. Our human nature, never in itself sufficient, requires the
Divine as its very life, and this need is met by the answer of a Boundless Love.
All this casts an amazing light on God; nothing so much reveals Him as our
Father. Too good to be true? But surely the most glorious thought that man can have of
God must be the most true! So dear are our souls to Him that He seeks fellowship with
us. Kin to Him, we are His "sons", though lost sons; and He would have us realize our
proper destiny and rise, through His Holy Son, into newness of life, therein becoming
"partakers of His Holiness".1
DIVINE IN ALL HIS WAYS
We have had frequent occasion in the course of this study of the Person of Jesus
Christ to illustrate our contention from the words of Scripture; and yet the strongest
testimony to His Deity is not to be found in texts or creeds, but in the experience of His
grace and power in the Church, and in the lives of individual believers all through the
centuries.
It was so in the days of His flesh. Nowhere in the gospels do we find Jesus
proclaiming Himself to His disciples, devout and stern monotheists as they were, in
words such as, "I
1
Hebrews, 12: 10.
am God"; that would have been to go back on His own method and to frustrate His
purpose.1 No, those men continued in His company for many days; they observed closely
His dealings with themselves and with all sorts and conditions of men. They witnessed
Him endure the contradiction of sinners, and the travesty of a judicial trial. Then came
His death on the cross, followed by an utterly unexpected resurrection from the dead. It
was then, and only then, that they were constrained to declare, "We beheld His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth", Jo. 1:14.
This is still true, for Jesus not only lived, He lives. He deals with us in ways
which we know to be God's ways. We have proved that His Spirit is a regenerating power
in our lives. The fact of Christ is always a fact of conscience. Men go to Him to scrutinize
Him, and find that His searching glance scans their inmost souls. His Holy presence
condemns them and yet they realize that He has the power, and the purpose, to rescue
them from the thraldom of sin. Thus God and Christ have become morally
indistinguishable. To do God's will is to do Christ's will. They are one.
Who, then, is this, and how shall we describe Him? We know Him as the One to
whom is given "the name that is above every name", for we have found Him to be the
power and the love of God unto salvation in our own lives. But, after all, it is only those
who owe to Him salvation who can do this, because the vision of His glory comes by way
of moral regeneration.
Just for this reason we cannot, and we should not, expect that the Muslim will
readily agree to believe in the Deity of
1
cp. Bishop Gore, Belief in Christ, p. 364 (in "The Reconstruction of Belief"). "We can conceive
nothing further from the method of Jesus than that He should have startled and shocked their consciences
by proclaiming Himself as God."
our Lord, or find it easy to call Him "Son of God". Nor should we needlessly obtrude that
Name upon him as though it were the foundation, rather than the fruit, of faith in Christ.
We ourselves first find out what Christ is to us, and how He stands to God, and then we
find this "Name above every name" appropriate to Him. But the chief thing is not the
Name, but the experience of His redemptive work in our hearts and lives.
Not even Paul was able to call Jesus "Son of God" at the first. He, formerly,
bitterly opposed Him, and it was as the result of a very real personal experience that he
was at last able to declare, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, except in the Holy
Spirit", I Cor. 12: 3. "It takes the very power of God to evoke a confession like that!"
Paul admits as much when he says, "It was the good pleasure of God to reveal His Son in
me", Gal. 1: 15. In other words, this truth about Christ is "revealed knowledge", not
something to be come at by the ordinary processes of human reasoning. That is what
Jesus meant when He exclaimed to Peter, "Blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood
hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven", Mt. 16: 13-17.
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Fairbairn, A. M. Christ in Modern Theology, Hodder and Stoughton, 1894.

Denney, J. Jesus and the Gospel, Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.
Forsyth, P. T. The Place and Person of Jesus Christ, Hodder and Stoughton, 1912.
Forrest, D. W. The Authority of Christ, T. & T. Clark, 1906.
Hermann, W. Communion with God, Williams & Norgate, 1906.
Horton, R. F. Capacity for God, Allen and Unwin, 1926.
Horton, R. F. My Belief, Jas. Clarke.

Mackintosh, H. R. The Person of Jesus Christ, T. and T. Clark, 1914.
— The Christian Apprehension of God, S.C.M. Press.
Temple, W. "The Divinity of Christ", in Foundations, Macmillan, 1922.
Dodd, C. H. "Son of God" in The Meaning of St. Paul for Today, Swarthmore Press,
1922.
Sanday. "The Son of God", Hastings Dictionary of the Bible.
Carnegie Simpson. The Fact of Christ, Hodder and Stoughton.
Baillie, J. The Place of Jesus Christ in Modern Christianity, T. and T. Clark, 1929.
Micklem, N. The Modern Approach to Christology, in Mysterium Christi, Longmans,
1930.
Hermann Sasse. "Jesus Christ the Lord" in the above.
Hoskyns and Davey. The Riddle of the New Testament, Faber and Faber, 1931.
Browne, L. E. The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia, Camb. Univ. Press, 1933.
Gore. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, S.P.C.K.
Goldsack, W. Christ in Islam. C.L.S. Tract, 1912.
Richards, J. R. What manner of Man is this? C.L.S. Tract, 1936.
Ghulam Ahmad, Teachings of Islam, Lahore, 1921.
Matthews, Capt. Mishkat-ul-Masabih, Calcutta, 2 vols., 1809-10.
Sinlessness of Prophets, sect. "The Christian Deity", Mohammadan Tract Depot, Lahore.
Unity versus Trinity, sect. "The Divinity of Jesus", Mohammadan Tract Depot, Lahore.
[Blank page]
CHAPTER
IV
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"The plain dictates of human nature are the unity of God and the absence of any
rival or partaker."
"From the Book of Genesis to that of Malachi, all the prophets have in unfaltering
tones declared the Unity of God."
The Jews are a witness that "they were never taught the Doctrine of Trinity; nor
did any of their Prophets ever foretell the advent, on this earth, of God, or of anyone who
could be described literally as the Son of God."
To expect any evidence of Trinity in the Holy Word of God (Bible) delivered to
mankind through the prophets, is as vain a desire as blowing at the sun under the delusion
of extinguishing its light" (p. 90).
"The Gospels bear witness to the same teaching, and no trace of Trinity will be
observed in them" (pp. 90-1).
"These absurd teachings are the most deadly sins of which man can be guilty."
"Equally detestable is the execrable blasphemy that God is not perfect unless the
Holy Ghost and Jesus, son of Mary, join with Him, and that these three lumped together
make God" (pp. 88, 91-2).
"We think that such Christian dogmas as Sonship, Trinity, and Atonement
constitute the greatest misrepresentation of him (Jesus), in fact a libel on his blessed
memory" (p. 91).
"The Muslim believes that Allah is one solitary Almighty Person, without internal
distinctions or with relationship—that is an irrational conception" (pp. 92-3).1
1
See Appendix E 2.
CHAPTER IV
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
The most familiar object of Muslim attack and scoffing is the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, for it is judged to be both irrational and unnecessary. That, however, is not
surprising. A notable Christian scholar has admitted that much the same attitude is taken
towards the doctrine by a large class of people in the West who have little or no interest
in theology. He says, "It seems an arithmetical puzzle which shocks the reverence of the
most devout; while it provokes the derision of those who pride themselves on a robust
common sense".1
But, further, the Muslim makes no serious attempt to weigh the reasons put
forward by Christian theologians for the origin of this doctrine, or to consider what are its
real implications. This criticism applies, for instance, to a book of 154 pages, published in
English under the title, "Unity versus Trinity, exhaustively treated".2 But in fact there is
in it no "treatment" of the subject at all. On the contrary, after making the extravagant
assertion that "there is no deliverance from eternal punishment but through a belief in the
mysterious doctrine of Trinity", the writer devotes approximately half the book to
impugning the character of Christ, with the express object of denying His Divinity.
1
A. S. Peake, Christianity, its Nature and its Truth, p. 90. A Muslim journal once affirmed that the
Christian belief was comparable to the formula 1 + 1 + 1 =1, a conclusion which if reached by a schoolboy
would promptly earn for him a spanking!
2
Published by The Mohammadan Tract & Book Depot, Lahore It appears to be a conglomeration from
the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, of Qadian.
Now, here again, we find the influence of the fundamental doctrine of Islam so
dominating the minds of Muslims that any statement about the Nature of God not
expressed in conformity with it is rejected out of hand. And, of course, support is found
in the pages of the Qur’ān for their protest against what they deem another blasphemous
heresy on the part of Christians.
REFERENCE TO THE TRINITY IN THE QUR’ĀN
The wording of the relevant verses is, to say the least, curious:
"O ye people of the Book! exceed not the limits in your religion; and of
God, say not what is untrue. The Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary, is only an apostle of
God……Believe, therefore, in God and His apostles, and say not 'Trinity'—
forbear—it will be better for you! For God is one God", 4: 169.
"They surely blaspheme who say, 'God is the third of three'; for there is no
god but the one God, and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous
chastisement shall befall such of them as do blaspheme", 5: 77.
"And when God shall say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary, hast thou said unto
mankind—Take me and my mother as two gods, besides God?' He shall say, ‘Glory
be unto Thee! it is not for me to say that which I know to be not the truth; had I said
that, verily Thou wouldest have known it: Thou knowest what is in me, but I know
not what is in Thee'," 5: 116.
Commenting on the first of these verses Mr. Yusuf Ali says,
"Here the Christian attitude is condemmed, which raises Jesus to an equality

with God; in some cases venerates Mary almost to idolatry; attributes a physical son
to God; and invents the doctrine of the Trinity, opposed to all reason, which
according to the Athanasian Creed, unless a man believes, he is doomed to hell for
ever."
Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his comments on the above verses, contends that the
Qur’ān "nowhere says that the Christian Trinity is formed of Jesus, Mary and God", as
some Christian critics of the Qur’ān have concluded. The reference to Mary, he says, has
to do with "the Roman Catholic doctrine
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 87
of the worship of Mary"; and adds, "Had Mary not been worshipped by the Christians as
the ‘Mother of God', the conclusion would have been safe that the Qur’ān mistook Mary
for the third person of the Trinity". On the contrary, since the Qur’ān nowhere associates
the Holy Spirit with the Trinity, it seems reasonable to hold that, in some way or other,
Mary was connected by Muhammad with this doctrine. Moreover, the remarks made by
Jalāluddīn on the first two verses, and by Baidhāwī on 4: 169, make it clear that in their
opinion at any rate, the Trinity did consist of Father, Mother, and Son. The author of a
Sufi work called, "The Perfect Man" (c. 1400 A.D.) asserts that the Christians' Gospel
begins with the words, "In the name of the Father, the Mother and the Son". The
extraordinary veneration known to have been shown by Abyssinian Christians for the
Virgin Mary may, conceivably, have given rise to such a notion.
But quite recently a further possible source of confusion has been suggested.1 In
Syriac the word rūhā, spirit, is feminine, and some Syriac-speaking Christians used to
think of the Holy Spirit as "she". Indeed, an early apocryphal gospel, called The Gospel
according to the Hebrews, contained the following sentence, referring presumably to the
Temptation of Jesus: "Even now did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my
hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor". Origen (3rd cent.), and
Jerome (4th cent.) are found to quote this sentence, and the gospel was known and used
as late as the 9th century. As Dr. Browne says, "It is at least possible that while the
Abyssinian veneration for the Virgin gave weight to the charge (in 5: 116), the original
ground of it was this passage from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or something
based on it". Any-
1
L. E. Browne, op. cit., pp. 20-22.
how, the idea became widespread, and as late as the 12th century an Egyptian priest was
accused of calling the Holy Spirit feminine: "He held that there was a feminine quality in
the Godhead, and he taught that this feminine quality is proper to the Holy Spirit. He held
that the Eternal Word of God is born through all eternity from the Father and the Holy
Spirit."
CHRISTIANS TOO BELIEVE IN THE UNITY
The first thing to be said, and said emphatically, is that we, no less than Muslims,
believe in the Unity of God; in fact, however varying may be the definition of the Trinity
among Christians, it is held at all only as subject to the doctrine of the Unity. So that
when the Muslim seeks to hold us to a description of the Trinity in the language of the
Qur’ān, we can say that, just as our use of the phrase "Son of God" has nothing of a
carnal significance, so there is no Christian anywhere who believes in "three gods".
And for this fundamental conviction we have the example and approbation of
Jesus Christ Himself, for He quoted, in no formal manner, the words of Moses to the
Israelites of old, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord", Deut. 6: 4. It is
noteworthy that He did not stop there, but went on to add the next words, "And thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and
with all thy strength", Mk. 12: 29-30; thus giving ethical content to the belief. He even
declared this to be "the greatest and foremost commandment". But to the Christian, as to
the Jew, the supreme fact disclosed by this utterance is that the Divine Being is a
Righteous and Holy God, not that He is one. The latter assertion, by itself, may be merely
the expression of a sterile monotheism, an intellectual abstraction.
WHAT SUPPORT HAS THE DOCTRINE IN SCRIPTURE?
The Muslim may say, however, and with much semblance of truth, that whereas
the doctrine of the Unity, which he holds, has abundant support in the actual words of the
Qur’ān —its "one great theme" indeed—yet the Christians have departed from the plain
teaching of the Bible, as set forth in the passage just cited, and have invented a doctrine
which has, contrary to all expectation, no support in their Scriptures.
The objection, so stated, raises two questions which may be dealt with at this
point: (1) what is "the one great theme" of the New Testament? (2) what support have we
in Scripture for this doctrine?
(I) While it is a fact that some Christian writers have been known to speak, in a
particular context, of the Trinity as "the distinctively Christian idea of God", yet in the
light of the supreme purpose of the Incarnation that statement could only be viewed as
misleading. True, at a very early date the form of Christian doctrine did become
Trinitarian, nevertheless, if the distinctively Christian teaching about God were to be
compressed into a single phrase, it would be the declaration, not that God is Triune, but
that He is redemptive love.1 The doctrine of the Trinity thus becomes significant for the
Christian, in relation to this redemptive purpose of God. And while data for the doctrine
are to be found in the Gospel narratives, yet the great theme—proclaimed alike by Jesus
and the Apostles—is always that of God's offer of grace to sinful men. Indeed, one
cannot imagine for a moment that when Jesus Himself went about the towns and villages
of Palestine, speaking of God and revealing God through His works of mercy, His chief
concern was that the people should grasp the idea that God was to be thought of as "in
three
1
cp. J. Baillie, The Place of Jesus Christ in Modern Christianity, pp. 185-6.
persons".1 The truth is that neither the doctrine of the Trinity, nor the Unity, could ever be
received as, in themselves, a Gospel, “Good News" for men in need of a saving
knowledge of God.
(2) We are thus led to make the further observation that this doctrine, as a credal
statement, is not to be found in Scripture. It is not there because it was not yet formulated
when the last book in the New Testament was completed. Its origin is due to the facts
which underlie the Christian experience of God's redeeming love, and to prolonged
reflection upon that experience. "Nevertheless the experience, to preserve which the
dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity were formulated, is plainly expressed in the
New Testament……The central point of that experience, as we have seen, is that of God
in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Christ……represents and mediates the Divine
Life and the redemptive action of the Creator".2 For instance, it is not possible to give
adequate expression to Paul's faith in the Deity of Christ without recourse to a theology
which is essentially Trinitarian. Consider these statements of his:
"God……who shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ", 2 Cor. 4: 6.
In this passage we see the very elements out of which, at a later date, the doctrine
of the Trinity was, so to speak, crystallized—God, in His transcendent Being, as
inscrutably above the universe; God made manifest to men in the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ; God present, unseen but very near, in the hearts of men.
"For through Him (Jesus Christ) we both (Jews and Gentiles) have our
access in one Spirit unto the Father", Ephes. 2: 18.3
1
H. R. Mackintosh, The Christian Apprehension of God, p. 108.
2
W. R. Matthews, God in Christian Thought and Experience, p. 86.
3
cp. another typical passage, Ephes. 3: 14-19.
Foreshadowings of a credal statement may be seen in the following:
"Baptising them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit", Mt. 28: 19—a baptismal formula.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit be with you all", 2 Cor. 13: 14—a form of benediction.
THE DOCTRINE IN RELATION TO EARLY EXPERIENCE OF THE

CHRISTIAN REVELATION
We turn, then, to consider more closely the nature of that experience which led
the early Christians to arrive at conclusions which prepared the way for such a statement
of their faith about God, notwithstanding their exceeding strong monotheistic
convictions.
In the first place, as we have already seen, they were compelled to account for the
Person of Jesus Christ. They could place Him in no known category. Not His teaching
particularly, but His character, His personal dealings with them, proclaimed Him to be
related to God, to the power and wisdom and love of God, in some unique and unheard-of
manner. They owed it to Him that they had become "new creatures",1 rescued from
bondage to evil and filled with a new hope and purpose and power for living.
And though, as Jews, they had been brought up to abominate idolatry as the one
unpardonable sin, yet we find them putting their whole faith in Christ. They were thus
compelled to adjust their new experience and conviction to the fundamental fact of the
Divine Unity. And they solved the problem by concluding that Christ belonged, in some
mysterious way, to the category of "God". It became, in time, a necessity of thought for
them to declare that there
1
2 Cor. 5: 17.
must be some hitherto unsuspected "distinction" within the Divine Nature, and their way
of indicating this conviction was to call Christ the "Son of God", or the "Word of God".
That for these men was, "a triumphant discovery, based on experience, as all scientific
truth must be based".1
Similarly with their experience of the Spirit. In strict accord with the promise
made to them by Jesus Himself while still amongst them, they found that the Spirit took
of the things of Christ and revealed them unto men. His words literally came true, for the
Spirit carried on the characteristic work of Christ in men's hearts, convicting them of sin
and sanctifying them unto righteousness;2 and, in particular, they themselves, through
fellowship with the Spirit, came to apprehend more deeply the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the Love of God. But, again, these ways of the Spirit's dealings with them
were the very ways of God Himself, so what could they do but conclude that the Spirit
also rightly belonged to the category of "God". In other words, God the Father
proclaimed by Jesus, Jesus Himself "the Son of God", and the Holy Spirit at work within
them, were essentially ONE in redemptive purpose and activity. That was a fact appre-
hended in their experience, and from it came the legitimate inference that God is Triune.
After all, what counts for most in the religious life—and how greatly Christians as
well as Muslims need to lay this to heart—is not so much the "form of sound doctrine"—
though our doctrine must be sound—as a real experience of the Living God in one's soul.
How apposite is the remark of Thomas a Kempis, "What doth it avail thee to discourse
profoundly of the Trinity, if thou be void of humility and art thereby displeasing to the
Trinity?"3
1
Archbishop Temple, C.V., p. 112, where the phrase is used of faith in the Godhead of Christ.
2
John 16: 8, 14-15.
3
Imitation of Christ, Book I, Ch. 1.
If the Muslim can be brought to understand that in the doctrine of the Trinity an
attempt is made to explain our apprehension of the redemptive operation of God's Holy
Spirit within us, then, though it may still appear unacceptable to him, he will see that it is
no longer unreasonable, and certainly not blasphemous. With Paul we can say, "As for
me, the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ has shined
in my heart"; for "faith knows no experience of the actuality of the Holy Spirit which is
not at the same time also an experience of the actual presence of Christ. There is no faith
in the present Christ, no confession of Jesus as "Lord", which is not mediated by the Holy
Spirit".1
And, of course, among Muslims themselves there is, not-withstanding the rigidity
of the more common doctrine of Allah, a very real belief in God's intimate dealings with
men. The Sufis, in particular, have frequently carried their doctrine of "union with the
Beloved" to such extravagant lengths that many of them, in days gone by, paid for their
temerity with their lives.
Let us, then, invite the Muslim to explore the phenomena of spiritual experience,
his and ours.2 In his heart, as in ours, the Spirit of the Living God is assuredly at work,
and it simply is not true, as a Muslim writer has ventured to say, that "the Holy Ghost has
performed no works which Jesus has said the Comforter will do—judged not anyone, nor
proved him guilty, nor glorified Christ, nor showed anything of Jesus Christ".3 Christian
people everywhere can from their own experience readily refute a baseless assertion like
that; and
1
Hermann Sasse, in Mysterium Christi, pp. 111-120; cp. in the same volume, Micklem, pp. 143-45.
2
cp. Wilson Cash, Christendom and Islam, p. 176.
3
Proof of Prophet Mohammad from the Holy Bible, p. 4. Mohammadan Tract Depot, Lahore.
their experience may be, and is being, repeated in the lives of Muslims. It is when the
Muslim, under conviction by the Holy Spirit, is driven to ask, Who can this be who so
deals with me? that he is in the way of understanding something of this great mystery
about God.
REASON FOR FORMULATING THE DOCTRINE
The early Christians, as has been indicated, were themselves satisfied that they
had come, through the Spirit's guidance, to perceive in this "mystery" new clues to the
Nature of the One Living and Invisible God. At first they formulated no doctrine about it;
there was no need. But the time came when the truths they held were called in question
and, by controversy, imperilled; and so, in self-defence, they sought to reduce their
convictions to credal form.
The more they thought upon this mystery, the more sure they were that, for this
fuller knowledge of God, their experience of Jesus, the Heavenly Father, and the Holy
Spirit was, in its very nature, inseparable. It was this that led to the conception of what
may be called, for want of better language, the "threefoldness" of God, and the Church at
length agreed to define the truth she held as indicating "a real distinction within the
Godhead—a differentiation of being or function". But the doctrine so formulated did not,
and does not, affirm "the reality of independent conscious beings, qualified by separate
essences". So that if and when the word "person" is used in speaking of the Trinity it
must be understood: (1) that it is a term that has been in use in this connection for many
centuries, (2) in a sense quite different from that which the word ordinarily conveys, and
(3) that it is still forced upon us by the very poverty of human language.1 Further, no
Christian claims that even the most widely-accepted definition
1
of the Trinity is adequate to the ultimate truth about God, but we do claim that it is a
contribution to a better understanding of the mystery of His Nature.
Finally, we need not be over-distressed in our minds if we find this attempt to
define the truth about God too difficult to grasp. We should remind ourselves that it will
always be true that no man by searching can find out God.1 It will be enough if we learn
to know God as Father, Jesus Christ as the Revealer and Saviour, and the Holy Spirit as
the Divine energy of eternal life in our hearts. If such knowledge enables us to know
God's will, and to do it, that is about as high an ambition as anyone can have.
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Dale, R. W. Christian Doctrine, Hodder and Stoughton, 1896.

Tisdall, St. C. The Religion of the Crescent, Appendix A. S.P.C.K., 1906.
Peake, A. S. Christianity its Nature and Truth. Ch. vi, Duckworth, 1909.
Matthews, W. R. God in Christian Thought and Experience, Ch. ix, Nisbet, 1930.
Archbishop Temple. Christus Veritas, Ch. xv, Macmillan, 1930.
Mackintosh, H. R. The Person of Jesus Christ, Book iii, Ch. xii.
Baillie, J. The Place of Jesus Christ, etc. Ch. ix, T. & T. Clark, 1929.
Gairdner, W. H. T. God as Triune, (Creator, Incarnate, Atoner), C.L.S. Tract, 1916.
Mylrea, C. G. and Sh. Abdul Masih. The Holy Spirit in Qur’ān and Bible, C.L.S. Tract,
1910.
Unity versus Trinity. Mohammadan Tract Depot, Lahore.
1
Job 11: 7.
[Blank Page]
CHAPTER
V
THE HISTORICITY OF THE
CRUCIFIXION
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"It has been the challenge of the Holy Qur’ān that Jesus did not die upon the
cross" (p. 100).
"By promising the sign of Jonas he (Jesus) was thereby giving to understand that
like Jonas he shall enter alive into the grave, thus refuting the idea of his death on the
cross."
"If the Gospel of Barnabas is false, and Councils of Christians have excluded it,
consider that the Gospel of Barnabas existed among the old Christians, for the history of
this is written in the books of A.D. 200 and 300"1 (p. 103).
"Jesus tried to elude arrest. He did not come to die for others; his was not a
voluntary death—he was really 'murdered'" (pp. 111-12).
"A whole night's prayer of Christ proved quite barren……as soon as morn
appeared one police constable of the Roman government came, and having arrested him,
put him into custody before 10 a.m. Is this the all-powerful God?"
"We cannot attribute the sufferings and trials which Jesus met with to the
Almighty Creator, but only to some weak creature whom circumstances had placed at the
mercy of his fellow-beings."
"The idea of the physical death of the Infinite God is no doubt the worst
blasphemy that has been uttered in the world, even a denial of God coming next to it."
1
Muslims mistakenly, and at times wilfully, confuse this with the Epistle of Barnabas.
CHAPTER V
THE HISTORICITY OF THE CRUCIFIXION
The Muslim professes not to believe in the death of Jesus, at least that is the view
of the great orthodox party. The modern rationalist, on the other hand, asserts it, but
contends that it was not on the cross that He died.
We have here an amazing feature in Islam: the vast majority of the Muslim people
have always held, and do still hold, that God, in the phrase of the Qur’ān "took up" Jesus
to heaven, so that He escaped death that day at the place called Golgotha. But now, over
against this centuries-old traditional belief, the Ahmadis have propounded the view that
Jesus after all did die and that a natural death, at some other time and place. Both parties
seek support for their opinions in such verses of the Qur’ān as refer to the subject.1 We
are required, therefore, to examine rather closely the particular language used at these
places.
The relevant passages are:
"The peace of God was on me the day I was born, and will be the day I shall
die, amūtu, and the day I shall be raised to life," 19: 34.
"And the Jews plotted, and God plotted. But of those who plot God is the
best. Remember when God said, 'O Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die,
mutawaffika, and will take thee up, rāfi‘uka, to myself and deliver thee from those
who believe not'", 3: 47-48.
1
The clash of opinion is to be observed in a tract on Doctrine of Atonement, by Abdul Haq, pubd. by
The Mohammadan Tract and Book Depot, Lahore. On p. 2I, the writer says, "The truth is that Jesus never
went up to the heavens". At this remark the Editor of the Book Depot inserts in parenthesis, "We do not
agree to this".
And for their (Jews) saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son
of Mary, an Apostle of God'—yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but
they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt
concerning him: no sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an
opinion; and they did not really slay him, but God took him up, rafa'ahu, to Himself.
And God is Mighty, Wise", 4: 156.
(Jesus speaks) "I was a witness of their actions while I stayed among them: but since
Thou hast taken me, tawaffaitanī, to Thyself Thou hast Thyself watched them, and
Thou art witness of all things", 5: 117.
It is to be noticed that it is several times stated in these verses that Jesus will
"die". Once that phrase, "God took him up" is used, and once it is emphatically declared
that the Jews did not kill him or crucify him. The remarks of Muslim commentators on
these words are eloquent of the confusion of mind caused by the vague and conflicting
statements in their own Book.
THE ORTHODOX VIEW—JESUS DID NOT DIE
We shall consider first the orthodox view—that Jesus did not die (and is not
dead), but was "taken up", while yet alive, by God to heaven.
This belief is based on the traditional interpretation of the most interesting of the
four passages, 4: 156. It is argued—somewhat in the spirit of Peter's rebuke to Jesus, "Be
it far from Thee, Lord, this shall never be unto Thee", Mt. 16: 22—that God would never
have permitted Jesus to die so shameful a death, otherwise He would have been "accursed
of God", Deut. 21: 23; and that is an impossible fate for a prophet of God. Support for
this view is found in 3: 48, where it is stated that God will "deliver" Jesus from those who
believe not; that is, He will frustrate the plans of the Jews to cause Jesus to die upon a
cross. What actually
THE HISTORICITY OF THE CRUCIFIXION 101
happened was that "they had only his likeness" or, more literally, "one was made to
appear to them like" (Jesus). That is how Rodwell translates the phrase walākin shubbiha
lahum; Palmer has "but a similitude was made for them", and Yusuf Ali, "but so it was
made to appear to them". The latter goes on to say, "The Quranic teaching is that Christ
was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances
which produced the illusion in the minds of some of his enemies; that disputations,
doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to God". The
context, however, suggests, not that "disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such
matters are vain", but that there was confusion, at the time, about the identity of Jesus.
Those sent to arrest him, "were in doubt concerning him," akhtalafū fīhi lafī shakkin
minhu; "no sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only a conjecture".1
But the phrase in the verse that has provoked the most remarkable speculation is
walākin shubbiha lahum, for the meaning of which we may take Palmer's translation as
correct enough, "a similitude was made for them". Baidhāwī remarks that some
maintained that Jesus was really crucified; others that it was not he who suffered, but
another who resembled him in features. Some said he was taken up to heaven, others that
his manhood only suffered, while it was his godhead that ascended into heaven. Much is
said of the identity of the person mistakenly crucified in place of Jesus. At this place
Baidhāwī mentions Titānus as the individual.2 The curious will find other names
scattered
1
What a commentary on this assertion is the plain statement of the gospels, viz. Judas betrayed the Son
of Man "with a kiss", Luke 22: 48.
2
Vol. I, p. 315, ed. Osmania Press, Istanbul, 1314 A.H.
here and there in Islamic literature, e.g. Faltiānus,1 and Shuyūgh, the King of the Jews.2
In both cases it is stated that God changed these men into the form or appearance of
Jesus. Tabarī, commenting on this passage, quotes Ibn Abbās to the effect that Jesus in
Gethsemane asked, "Is there anyone who will offer himself in my stead? I will promise
him a place in heaven". Thereupon one of the disciples, Sergius by name, gave himself
up to Jesus to be transformed into his likeness and to be crucified instead of him. After
the crucifixion the disciples discovered that one of their number was missing. It was then
that Judas went away and hanged himself, because he realized that he had been the means
of a fellow-disciple's death.3
In the spurious "Gospel of Barnabas" Judas is the one to suffer crucifixion
because of mistaken identity. God, seeing the danger to which Jesus was exposed at the
approach of the soldiers with Judas, commanded Gabriel and other archangels to "Take
Jesus out of the world". He was in the house and they took him "out by the window"…
…"and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for
evermore". Judas impetuously entered the chamber while the disciples were sleeping,
"whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed
in speech and face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having
awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and
answered: "Thou, Lord, art our Master, hast thou now forgotten us?" And he, smiling,
said: "Now are ye foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!". Thereupon the
soldiers entered and laid their hands upon him "because
1
'Araisu 't-Tijān, pp. 549-50.
2
Qisasu'l-Anbiyā, pp. 274-5.
3
Ed. Cairo, Vol. vi, p. 10.
he was in every way like to Jesus". When Judas protested, "the soldiers lost their
patience, and with blows and kicks they began to flout Judas and they led him with fury
into Jerusalem". Words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel account of the trial and
crucifixion are then adapted for use by Judas, and finally he is led away and crucified.1
Of such a nature has been the comment following that extraordinary remark at 3:
48, "God is the best of those who plot". Accordingly, we find an Indian Muslim, who
represents the orthodox view, affirming that "our Koran also tells us that Jesus was not
crucified but they mistook another person for him"; and he adds, "It was a deception by
God".2
A curious intermediate position, between the view of the orthodox and that of the
modern rationalist, is one which interprets 3: 48 to mean that Jesus himself was crucified
and that he really died, and remained dead for a brief while, after which God restored him
to life and "took him up" into heaven. Thus Baidhāwī remarks: "It is said that Allah
caused him (Jesus) to die for seven hours, then took him up to heaven," rafa'ahu ila-’l-
samā’e.3 Even Muhammad Ali, who neither believes that Jesus died on the cross nor that
he was "taken up alive into heaven", has to admit that mutawaffika in this place does
mean "I will cause you to die"; in this sense Allah "took his soul"; and adds, "Hence
1
The Gospel of Barnabas, Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, 1907, pp. 471-79. An English translation from the
Italian MS. which dates from the 15th or 16th cent., i.e. 1400 years after the time of Barnabas. Sale referred
to it 200 years ago in the Preface to his English translation of the Qur’ān, and said "it appears to be a
barefaced forgery". This is the opinion of Lonsdale and Laura Ragg also. Indian Muslims probably owe
their knowledge of it to Sale.
2
Proof of Prophet Mohammad from the Holy Bible, Mohammadan Book Depot, Lahore, pp. I9 and 24.
3
op. cit., Vol. I, p. 209.
some commentators say that Jesus remained dead (i.e. on the cross) for three hours;
others say for seven hours, and so on", (note 436).
Quite clearly the commentators are faced at this point with a serious difficulty,
inasmuch as the plain statement of 3: 48 appears to contradict the still more positive
assertion in 4: 156, viz. that Jesus was not killed. For if he were taken up alive to heaven,
then this verse would make it necessary for him to have died before being taken up.
Consequently, as just stated, some have attempted to solve the riddle by explaining that
Jesus only died for a few hours, while others interpret the death figuratively and suppose
the significance of the words to be that he was lifted up while he was asleep, or that God
caused him to die a spiritual death to all worldly desires.1
Undoubtedly some of this early comment owes its form to the knowledge that
Muslim writers had of the speculations of the Gnostics and Docetists in the sub-apostolic
period. For instance, a very similar view of this mistaken identity theory is to be found in
the heretical teachings of the Manichaeans, centuries before the rise of Islam. Mani (3rd
cent.), and before him Basilides, taught that it was Simon of Cyrene
1
Quoted by Sale, in loc. cit. from Jalāluddīn and Baidhāwī. An interesting interpretation of 4: 156 is to
be found in the pages of Mināratu-l-Masīh by Chirāgh-ud-dīn Jammawī, of Kashmir. This writer, who
quotes the gospels in such a way as to make it clear that he accepts them as authentic, says that Quranic
teaching, in effect, makes the death of Jesus a pre-condition of his being "taken up"; e.g. "Every soul shall
taste death. Then to Us shall ye return", 29: 58; cp. 32: 11. He declares that Muslim belief that someone
was changed into Jesus' likeness and crucified, lacks support, because (a) there is no tradition confirming it,
and (b) for an unbeliever to be changed into the likeness of a holy prophet is unreasonable and impossible.
Furthermore, what the passage denies, he says, is not that Jesus died, but that by being crucified, he was
"accursed".
who took the place of Jesus and was crucified. The Gnostics of the second century
contended that Jesus had no real share in the material side of human life. They even said
that he took on a different guise to different onlookers, at different times. In other words,
they stood for a Jesus who was "an abstract phantom".1
Some of the leading Muslim thinkers of today are aware that there is this
background, in part at least, behind the words of the Qur’ān, yet what do they make of it?
Here is what Mr. Yusuf Ali says in his comment on 4: 156,
"The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine

that his (Jesus') life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that on the
third day he rose in the body with his wounds intact, and walked about and
conversed, and ate with his disciples, and was afterwards taken up bodily to heaven.
This is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious
atonement for sins (the italics are ours), which is rejected by Islam. But some of the
early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross. The
Basilidans believed that some one else was substituted for him. The Docetae held
that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phan-
tom body, and that his Crucifixion was only apparent, not real. The Marcionite
Gospel (about A.D. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he
appeared in human form. The Gospel of Barnabas supported the theory of
substitution on the Cross."2
Referring to this passage in his note on 3: 48, he says the two verses should be
read together, for in 4: 156 "it is said that the Jews neither crucified nor killed Jesus, but
that another was killed in his likeness. The guilt of the Jews remained, but Jesus was
eventually taken up to God."3 But what is it that this modern interpreter of the Qur’ān
wishes
1
cp. H. R. Mackintosh, P.C., pp. 384-5.
2
op. cit. note 663, p. 230.
3
idem. note 394, P. 137.
the readers of the Qur’ān to conclude? Did Jesus die that day, or did He not? Does he
favour the mistaken identity theory? And what meaning does he wish people to attach to
his remark that "Jesus was eventually taken up to God"? Is this the "seven hours' death",
or the Qadiani view that Jesus lived to the great age of 120, and then died in Kashmir?
Mr. Yusuf Ali would seem to be an illustration of the truth to which a leading Indian
Muslim educationalist once gave expression in the presence of the present writer: "Many
a devout and thoughtful Muslim simply is not sure, on the basis of the Qur’ān, whether
Jesus really died on the cross or not". For here is what this latest commentator contents
himself with saying in the earlier part of the note on 4: 156, from which we have already
quoted: "The end of the life of Jesus on earth is as much involved in mystery as his birth,
and indeed the greater part of his private life, except the three main years of his ministry.
It is not profitable to discuss the many doubts and conjectures among the early Christian
sects and among Muslim theologians", (the italics are ours).
But there are the gospels, our earliest and only historical documents on the
subject—why not be guided by these? With one voice these proclaim that Jesus of
Nazareth was put to death on the cross, by the orders of Pontius Pilate, at the instigation
of the Jews. In those records there is not the remotest suggestion either of confusion of
identity, or of substitution, nor yet the slightest doubt but that Jesus actually died on the
cross. But no, rather than face the FACT the Muslim prefers to dally with an admitted
heresy, and—at least some of them—to attest it instead of the only historical account of
the event which the world possesses. The pity of it!
We shall deal with the fact in the next chapter, and endeavour to make it
unmistakeably clear that we start with a fact, and not with some interpretation of it
thought to be
"necessary for a theological doctrine". Of what use is it, anyway, to deny a fact of history,
merely because one finds a certain interpretation of it to be distasteful?
A MODERN RATIONALIST INTERPRETATION
In more recent times Muslim rationalists have been busy trying to reconcile these
conflicting statements in the Qur’ān, and the Ahmadis are persuading themselves that
they have at length found a more correct interpretation of the Arabic. The meaning they
have put upon these passages is not only a repudiation of the traditional view in Islam,
but a shrewd blow aimed at the very foundation of the Christian faith.
Thus, according to Mirza Ghulām Ahmad of Qadian, "Jesus did not die upon the
cross but was taken down by his disciples in a swoon and healed within forty days by a
miraculous ointment, called in Persian marham-i-‘Isā, ‘the ointment of Jesus'.1 He then
travelled to the East on a mission to the ten lost tribes of the children of Israel (believed
by Ahmad to be the peoples of Afghanistan and Kashmir), and finally died at the age of
120, and was buried in Khan Yar Street, in Srinagar, Kashmir."2
It will be noticed that the Mirza makes nothing of the statement in the Qur’ān
hitherto taken to mean that those who went to arrest Jesus were in doubt about his
identity. Instead, he puts forward this notion, which has no support whatever in the
Qur’ān, that Jesus merely swooned on the cross and was revived. But this idea was not
his own inven-
1
This remedy, which Ahmad declared he had "prepared solely under the influence of divine
inspiration", disappeared from the market as the result of an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
Lahore, dated 19 October, 1899, followed by the decision of the Chief Court of the Panjab in the appealed
case, dated 8 June, 1900. cp. H. A. Walter, The Ahmadiya Movement, p. 42.
2
H. A. Walter, op. cit., p. 90.
tion, fertile though his imagination undoubtedly was. He borrowed it, and in considerable
detail, from the West.
It was advanced over a century ago by the German rationalist Venturini, who
wrote a romance in which he suggested that, since death by crucifixion is a very slow
process, Jesus when taken down from the cross after some six hours was not in reality
dead, but in a swoon. Having been laid in a cool cavern he was revived by the application
of healing ointments and strongly-scented spices. Dr. Paulus and the still more famous
Schleirmacher lent their support to this extravagant theory, but it was ridiculed by no less
a person than the sceptic Strauss, in the following vigorous language:
"It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre,
who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging,
strengthening and indulgence, and who at last yielded to His sufferings, could have
given to the disciples the impression that He was a conqueror over death and the
grave, the Prince of Life—an impression which lay at the bottom of their future
ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He
had made upon them in life and death……It could by no possibility have changed
their sorrow into enthusiasm, or have elevated their reverence into worship."1
However, the point to bear in mind is that Ghulām Ahmad sought in this way not
only to deny the historicity of the Resurrection, but to proclaim that Jesus is dead. And in
this all Ahmadis are simply repeating what he gave out.
We observe the same purpose in the way Maulana Muhammad Ali translates and
expounds the verses we have cited above. Of the phrase, wamā qatalūhu wamā salabūhu,
"for they slew him not and they crucified him not", 4: 156, he says: "The word does not
negative Jesus' being nailed to the cross, but it negatives his having expired on the cross
1
Strauss, Leben Jesu, I, 412, pubd. 1835.
as a result of being nailed to it".1 His anxiety to establish his theory may be seen by the
way in which he forces a verse elsewhere that has not the remotest reference to this
subject to yield confirmation of it; viz. "strike him with part of her", 2: 67-68. The
obvious application here is to the Cow, or heifer (from which the chapter takes its name),
due to be sacrificed in order that a murderer might be discovered through the miracle to
be wrought on the corpse by a piece of her flesh. The whole passage has to do with the
Jews of the time of Moses, and this particular phrase may be interpreted, as does Mr.
Yusuf Ali, in the light of Deuteronomy 21: 1-9. But the Ahmadi writer says,
"it becomes almost certain that this incident refers to Jesus himself, as it was
with respect to his death that disagreement took place, and many doubted his
death……The Jews wanted to do away with Jesus, but Allah decided that he should
not die……The act of murder was not completed in the case of Jesus, for after he
was taken down from the cross his legs were not broken, as in the case of the
thieves."
The meaning of the word "strike" therefore, may be paraphrased, he says: "strike
him with partial death, or liken his condition to that of the partially dead man; and thus
‘the matter was made dubious', as we have in 4: 156. There is no other case of a murder
in Jewish history in which the whole nation may have been guilty and which might
answer to the description of these two verses."2
Further, he takes the other phrase, walākin shubbiha lahum, to mean, "but (the
matter) was made dubious to them", so making the reference impersonal; and adds,
notwithstanding all that has been quoted above to the contrary,
1
But surely, had that been the sense intended by the Qur’ān, the wording would have been, "for though
they crucified him they did not slay him".
2
Notes 110-12.
"The story that some one else was made to resemble Jesus is not borne out
by the words of the Qur’ān, which could only mean, if an object were mentioned,
that Jesus was made to resemble (something). And even if we may supply the object
that is omitted, that which he was made to resemble must be spoken of in the same
passage, and while the resemblance to one crucified is implied in the statement that
they did not crucify him, there is no mention here or elsewhere of any person who
may have been made to resemble him or more properly whom he may have been
made to resemble."1
THE CROSS OF SHAME
As for the phrase in 3: 48 which Rodwell, Palmer, and others translate, "take thee
up to myself",2 Muhammad Ali makes it yield the meaning, "Exalt you in my presence";
and says the verb raf‘a signifies one of two things—"raising", "elevating", i.e. a
movement in space; or "exalting", "making honourable". He contends that wherever, in
the Qur’ān and in Muslim literature, the phrase is used of man and God, it is always used
in the latter sense, which is the one he himself adopts. Accordingly, "the exaltation of
Jesus is mentioned here as a reply to the Jews, whose object was to make him die an
accursed and ignominious death on the cross".3 The ignominy is explained in his note on
the same phrase in 4: 156 where, after quoting from Deut. 21: 23, he adds,
"as the accursed one cannot be called honourable in the Divine presence,
hence the negation of Jesus being killed on the cross and the affirmation that he was
exalted before the Divine presence—i.e. he was not accursed".
1
Note 646.
2
cp. Shaikh Abdul Qādir ibn-i-Shāh Wali Ullāh, Delhi (1790); Maulvi Imād-ud-dīn Lāhiz, D.D.,
Amritsar, (1900); and Abul Kalām Ahmad, Delhi (1931), who render into Urdu as follows: Main tujhe apnī
taraf uthā lungā
3
Note 437.
After stating that both the Jews and the Christians "necessarily believe in the
death of Jesus on the cross", although, according to the Qur’ān, "they have really no sure
knowledge of it", he continues,
"He (the Christian) admits the truth of Deut. 21: 23, but says that unless
Jesus were accursed he could not take away the sins of those that believe in him: as
in Gal. 3: 13, ‘Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on the tree'."1
In other words, this commentator and those who follow him, prefer to believe that
the name of Jesus is "exalted” through His escaping death by crucifixion, and, moreover,
that it was by the act of God that He escaped. How different is the Christian conception of
this sublime act of sacrificial love! It is set out in unforgettable language by the writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, "We see Jesus, because of the suffering of death, crowned
with glory and honour"; and again by Paul, "He (Jesus) humbled Himself, becoming
obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. For which cause also God HIGHLY
EXALTED HIM, and gave unto Him the Name that is above every name; that in the
Name of Jesus every knee should bow".2
But this thought about the inescapable shame attaching to such a death has been
effectively dealt with, so far as Jesus is concerned, by Paul in the very passage quoted
from Galatians. There he cites the words from Deuteronomy and pointedly says that
Christ "became" a curse for us.3 That is to say, He voluntarily underwent the shame of
crucifixion for the redemption of mankind; a very different thing. And it is necessary to
stress the voluntary nature of Christ's death
1
Notes 649-50.
2
Heb. 2: 9; Philip 2: 8-9.
3
The Greek verb genomenos means "becoming" or "having become", not "was made" as the Authorised
Version has it.
because Muslim writers are wont to assert, on the basis of the Gospel narrative, that there
was nothing voluntary about it at all.1 But in doing so they ignore the clear statements of
the gospels, e.g. "He stedfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem"; "No one taketh it (my
life) away from me, but I lay it down of myself ".2
Moreover, it is part of Paul's purpose at this place to show that Christ by so dying
demonstrated the utter futility of the Law's assertion that everyone who is hanged on a
gibbet is, ipso facto, "accursed". Here is One, he seems to say, the Perfect and ever
Blessed Son of God, undergoing just this death through the malice of men. That really
proved, not that He was "accursed", but that the Law had, in its assertion, over-reached
itself.3
THE CROSS STILL "A STUMBLING-BLOCK"
It is, indeed, pathetic to see the lengths to which the Maulana Sahib and others are
prepared to go in their determination to deny the death of Jesus on the cross.4 On 4: 156
1
cp. "Crucifixion was not voluntary on the part of Jesus. He tried to evade arrest and even prayed at the
last moment to be spared that cup." The Light, 16 Sept. 1933.
2
Luke, 9: 51; Jo. 10: 18. cp. Jo. 11: 7-16.
3
cp. W. E. Wilson, The Problem of the Cross, pp. 97 ff.
4
Speaking to the author on one occasion about the Crucifixion, an educated Indian Muslim actually
used the words, "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ made the supreme sacrifice". Realizing what the
appropriate and really honest meaning of such a phrase should be, we asked him, "Then you do believe that
Jesus gave His life on the cross?" The expression on his face changed as he haltingly replied, "Ah! well,
you see, we Muslims believe that He did not quite die."
And a European convert to Islam, writing for the children’s page in The Light, said this about the hymn
Abide with me: "The beautiful lines of Francis Lyte, which I was made to learn when I was a child, now
seem to me an echo of the Quranic verse, ‘If they turn
he adduces fourteen "testimonies" to demonstrate that, "on the strength of the historical
testimony afforded by the gospels themselves", Jesus escaped death on the cross.1 We
proceed to quote as many of these as really bear on the subject before us; some of the
fourteen have to do more precisely with the actuality of the Resurrection.
Jesus remained on the cross for a few hours only, but death by crucifixion
was always tardy. The fallacy lies in the word "always". But the gospels as clearly
attest that, in His case, death soon intervened. And it can be readily explained. For a
whole week He was subjected to severe strain, then followed the "agony" of
Gethsemane, the sleepless night, the long trials, the brutal scourging. Scourging
alone, of that kind, often killed a man.
The two men crucified with Jesus were still alive when taken down from the
cross, therefore Jesus also might have been alive. "Might have been" is not the same
as "was". But we are told, on the contrary, "He was dead already", Mk. 15: 44f; Jo.
19: 33.
The breaking of the legs was resorted to in the case of the two criminals but
dispensed with in the case of Jesus. The implication being that death was induced by
breaking the legs—but it was done to the two criminals on the cross, and it was not
done to Jesus because, on approaching Him, the soldiers "saw that He was dead
already".
The side of Jesus being pierced, blood rushed out, and this was a certain
sign of life. To be exact it was "blood and water"; evidently a different phenomenon,
and meant by the writer to imply not life, but death, Jo. 19: 34.
Even Pilate did not believe that Jesus had actually died in so short a time
(Mark, 15: 44). On the contrary "Pilate was
back, say, God is sufficient for me, there is no God but He; on Him do I rely, and He is the Lord of
mighty power'." She then proceeded to quote the verses of the hymn, but could not bring herself to include
the last, Hold Thou Thy Cross before my closing eyes. (Ayesha Morrison, 16 Sept. 1934.)
1
The phrase quoted occurs in his book, Muhammad and Christ, p. 159.
surprised that He was dead already",1 and having ascertained the facts from the
soldier "he granted the corpse to Joseph", Mk. 15: 45.
Jesus was not buried like the two criminals, but was given into the charge of
a wealthy disciple of his, who lavished care upon him and put him in a spacious
room hewn in the side of the rock. An airy chamber, forsooth, in which He would
eventually recover from the "swoon"—Venturini's fancy, again! But we do not
gather this from the only sources we have; rather, it was a place prepared for the
dead, Mk. 15: 46; Mt. 27: 59-60; Lk. 23: 50-53; Jo. 19: 38-42.
Jesus Christ prayed the whole night before his arrest to be saved from the
accursed death on the cross, and he also asked his disciples to pray for him, and it is
the Divine law that the prayers of a righteous man in distress and affliction are
always accepted (again that word "always"). He seems to have even received a
promise from his Master (sic!) to be saved, and it was to this promise that he
referred when he cried on the cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken
me?”—Heb. 5: 7 making the matter still more clear, for there it is plainly stated that
the prayer of Jesus was accepted: "When he had offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him who was able to save him from
death, and was heard in that he feared”. All these testimonies show conclusively that
Jesus could not have died on the cross, and therefore the statement in the Qur’ān is
perfectly true.
But the writer to the Hebrews has already referred to, and constantly has in
mind, the death of Christ, not escape from it.2 It is only reasonable, therefore, to
suppose that the words at 5: 7 have some other meaning than that which the
Ahmadis are seeking to wrest from it. And, as a matter of fact, when we turn to the
Gospel narratives we find that the supreme note of the "supplications" offered in
Gethsemane, "with strong crying and tears", was "not my will, but Thine be done".3
Moreover, we find that that part of His prayer was "accepted", i.e. God's will was
fulfilled. The other part, "let this cup pass from me", though "heard" (Heb. 5: 7),
1
Mk. 15: 44, Moffatt's translation.
2
cp. Heb. 2: 9; 7: 27; 9: 14, 26; 10: 10; 12: 2.
3
cp. Mk. 14: 36; Mt. 26: 39 and 42; Lk. 22: 42.
was not "accepted", in that He drank the cup, or, as the phrase of the writer to
the Hebrews has it, He did taste death for every man.
How desperate must be the plight, and the purpose, of those who so misread and
misrepresent the plain statements of Scripture!
And yet that is not the final conclusion of the matter as far as the Ahmadis are
concerned. It would never do to let it be assumed that they, too, hold that having escaped
the cross Jesus now lives. He is dead, and must be declared dead, as did Ghulam Ahmad.
And for this purpose also the "uncertain sound" of the Qur’ān is called in as witness.
Commenting on the words, "When Thou didst take me to Thyself", 5: 117, Muhammad
Ali writes, "This verse is a conclusive proof that Jesus died a natural death, and is not
now alive in heaven, according to the theoretic belief of the Christians and the
supposition of many Muslims".1
HOW CAME MUHAMMAD TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS?
While we too agree that, generally speaking, it is not profitable to discuss mere
conjectures, yet it is required that we should try to account for the strange and conflicting
references to the death of Jesus in the Qur’ān. Is there discernible any motive in
Muhammad's denial of the Crucifixion?
At the outset we need to bear in mind that, in all probability, Muhammad was
illiterate2 and so could not, and did not, read the gospels for himself. For what knowledge
he had of their contents he was dependent on such information as was supplied to him by
others.3 Had he known them for himself he could not have been misled about this central
1
Part of note 752.
2
cp. 7: 156, "the ummi prophet"
3
cp. 16: 105, "Surely a certain person teacheth him".
event, because they afford incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was crucified and that He
died on the cross.
May we conclude, however, that Muhammad was in genuine doubt as to what
actually took place? In that case the confused and conflicting statements in the Qur’ān
would receive explanation. He could not read, and it may be that he never met an ardent
evangelist whose one theme was "Jesus Christ and Him crucified". It is, indeed,
remarkable that throughout the Qur’ān there is no comment on the Christian
interpretation of the meaning of Christ's death. It is for these very reasons that a recent
biographer of the life of Muhammad declares that, "Muhammad cannot have had
permanent personal relations with Christians who had accurate information concerning
their religion".1
On the other hand, it is not impossible that he heard of the Manichaean view of
the Person of Jesus, and that he credited it. We have already seen that a phrase in 4: 156
can be so read, and has been so read by Muslims, as to support this view. In which case
we may suppose that Muhammad would have welcomed it and used it to secure the name
of the prophet Jesus from the "ignominy" of such a death. The late Sayyid Amir Ali once
stated that "success is always one of the greatest criterions of truth",2 and that seems a
point of view typical of much Muslim thought. Judged by this standard the Crucifixion
could only be looked upon as tragic failure; yet Jesus, to the mind of Muhammad
certainly, was not a failure.3
Then there was the part taken by the Jews in this matter. It will be observed that in
4: 156 it is clearly affirmed that it was the Jews who claimed they had slain Jesus. What
account of the matter would those at Madina give to
1
Tor Andrae, Muhammad, English trans. p. 125.
2
The Spirit of Islam, p. 66.
3
cp. 3: 40.
Muhammad? For any one Christian in the place who might seek to explain away the
crucifixion of Jesus in the fashion of the Docetists, there would have been hundreds of
Jews to swear on oath that He had been put to death on the cross. What then? Muhammad
had experienced much trouble at the hands of these people—as the Qur’ān bears
testimony, they had teased him and lied to him—how was he to know they were not
deceiving him again? After all, the Jews hated the name of Jesus: what was to prevent
them lying to Muhammad about this affair also?
Is there yet another possibility? Have we any ground for the conjecture that
Muhammad knew the facts about that Death, and that he was also aware of its unique
influence, as a spiritual factor, in winning men to the allegiance of Christ? Could this
have been why he denied the Crucifixion? That is probably a question that can never be
answered with any confidence.
Nevertheless, here is one who called himself a Muslim and claimed to pattern his
life on that of Muhammad—Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, of Qadian. He at least leaves us in no
doubt about the motive of his denial of the Crucifixion. His trenchant assertion, therefore,
in what may be called his last legacy to his followers, that Christ died and is dead, is not
without deep significance for those who would understand the real attitude of the modern
Ahmadi rationalist towards the Cross and Christianity.
"Listen, my friends, to my last injunction. I tell you a secret. Remember it

well that you may upset all the arguments which the Christians put forward. Prove to
them, that, in reality, Christ, the son of Mary, is for ever dead. Through the victory
to be gained by this argument you will be able to wipe the Christian religion off the
face of the earth. There is no necessity for you to waste your precious time in other
wearisome wrangles. Just concentrate upon
the death of Christ, the son of Mary, and by the use of powerful arguments reduce
the Christians to silence. On the day that you succeed in proving that Christ joined
the ranks of the dead, and imprint this fact on the minds of Christians, you will know
that the Christian religion has made its exit from the world."1
But the actual and ample historical evidence for the Crucifixion afforded by the
gospels themselves is all that a reasonable man requires in order to be convinced. There
is, indeed, a striking contrast between the full and graphic account of actual eye-
witnesses in the one set of narratives, and the meagre, vague and contradictory assertions
in the other. Frankly, no one would go to the Qur’ān for reliable information about an
event like this that had taken place 600 years previously.
Finally, the evidence before the world is wholly against the varying contentions of
the Muslims.
Nothing is clearer in the Gospel narrative than the FACT that Jesus of Nazareth
was crucified to the death under Pontius Pilate, to placate the Jews.
The grand theme of Paul's writings is the Cross of Christ. He himself could never
have denied the Crucifixion, yet it was a long time before he saw its sublime meaning;
but when he did, he exclaimed, "God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ".2
The Jews have never denied it.3
1
Izālatu’l Auhām ("Refutations of Whims and Fancies", i.e., of Muslims), p. 116. It is interesting to
recall that Voltaire, the French atheist, was rash enough to predict in 1760 that, "before the beginning of the
nineteenth century Christianity will have disappeared from the earth".
2
Galat. 6: 14.
3
cp. Rabbi Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth. This modern Jew says that the more widely all the
branches of Judaism during the period of the Second Temple are studied the more impossible it becomes to
cast wholesale doubt on the historicity of the Synoptic gospels, p. 126.
Non-Christian writers attest it. For instance, Tacitus, the Roman historian (b. 56
A.D.) in his account of the persecution of the Christians under Nero, states that, "The
author of that sect was Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius was punished with death as a
criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".1 And a Greek writer, Lucian (b. 100 A.D.) in
The Death of Peregrinus, refers to the Founder of Christianity as "the crucified sophist";
while Celsus, the Epicurean cynic, speaks of Christ as "the crucified Jesus," and
"crucified God".
And even as the tenth day of Muharram bears evidence to the Muslim world of
the historicity of the sad deaths at Karbalā, so does the frequent celebration throughout
the world of the Holy Communion service bear testimony to the actuality of the death of
Christ. By this act we do "show forth the Lord's death, till He come".2
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Gwatkin, H. M. Selections from Early Christian Writers, Macmillan, 1905.

Zwemer, S. M. The Glory of the Cross. Marshall Bros.
Walter, H. A. The Ahmadiya Movement, Y.M.C.A., Calcutta, 1918.
Notovitch, N. The Unknown Life of Christ, Hutchinson, 1895.
Ahmad Shah, Four Years in Tibet, Lazarus, Benares. 1906.
Ragg, L. and L. The Gospel of Barnabas, Clarendon Press, 1907.
Muhammad Ali, Muhammad and Christ, Lahore, 1921.
1
Annals xv: 44.
2
I Cor. 11: 26.
[Blank Page]
CHAPTER
VI
HOW CHRIST SAVES
[Blank Page]
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"Man will not be punished for his sins provided he believes in Jesus, for he has
taken upon himself the sins of all men. This is what the Christian doctrine of atonement
means" (pp. 143, 149).
If, two thousand years ago, Jesus died for the sins of the world, then all
"Christian" sins are automatically forgiven.
"Many have believed in Christ, but the fact of their escape from the consequences
of their sins and misdeeds is not visible in time and space" (p. 143).
"This vicarious atonement……must exercise a deadening effect upon activity,
because it leaves naught for the individual to accomplish and removes the whole burden
which lies on his shoulders" (p. 143).
“Christians believe that the crucifixion of Jesus is an atonement for sins—"by this
am I to believe that human beings will go directly to heaven, notwithstanding that they
commit various delinquencies?"
"Is there any believing Christian lady, European or native, who can say that faith
in the blood of Jesus has relieved her of the pains of childbirth? (Genesis, 3: 16)."
"All Christian beliefs—Divinity of Jesus, his Atonement, etc.—take the story of
the fall of Adam for their basis. It is the bed-rock of the Church, and if it be shattered the
whole Church must collapse."
"Why did God appear in the flesh and bear shame to save mankind? He could
have chosen a better way, as did the prophets" (pp. 145-7).
"No need for death on the cross; God effects what He purposes by merely
manifesting His wish" (p. 126).
The Qur’ān teaches that "for the forgiveness of a sinner God does not require to
be paid any compensation" (pp. 142, 144).
"If Jesus was God his mission should have been universal and not limited to any
particular community……God is not the Lord of the Jews alone" (p. 149).
"If Jesus Christ came to save Israel only, then who is to save the people not
belonging to that race?" (p. 149)
"Christ's death reverses the rule of nature, whereby the inferior is always
sacrificed to the superior."
"‘Keeping the law' is the narrow path; Christians by following this doctrine take
the broad and easy way of 'only believing'."
"As to the spirit of self-sacrifice on the part of Jesus there can be no question
whatever—it was a sacrifice in the cause of Truth, not atonement for the sins of human
nature."
"A voluntary sacrifice on the part of Jesus in going to the cross, turns out when
subjected to the acid test of contemporary evidence—the last chapters of Matthew—to be
an act of murder, pure and simple" (pp. 111-12).
Belief by Christians in the death of Jesus on the cross "is necessary for the
theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, which is rejected
by Islam."
(Sonship) "if combined with the doctrine of vicarious atonement amounts to a
negation of God's justice and man's moral responsibility."
"The advocates of Christianity rely for salvation on two dogmas solely, viz: the
sinlessness of Jesus and atonement through his blood."
"The second indispensable requisite for salvation (the other being the Trinity),
according to the Christians, is a belief in the dogma that Jesus Christ died on the cross
and by means of this accursed death shared with Satan the curse."
"Belief in the atonement involves disbelief in the mercy of God, for He was not
satisfied until He punished Jesus for the sins of mankind" (p. 147).
"I do not see how the cross helps us to repent" (pp. 147-8).
"What effect belief in Christ's death can have on character passes understanding"
(pp. 147-8).
"According to Islam, man enters the world without any sin in his nature. Sin is an
acquisition, an after-acquisition and not a heritage" (p. 127).
"Belief in the omnipresence of God keeps a man from the commission of secret
sins" (pp. 132–4)1
1
See further Appendix E 3-5.
CHAPTER VI
HOW CHRIST SAVES
The Qur’ān refers to the Crucifixion only to deny it. It makes no mention of a
belief current among Christians to the effect that on the cross "Christ died for the
ungodly",1 and it is possible that Muhammad never heard of such a thing as a doctrine of
the atonement.
But Muslims today frequently raise objection to Christian belief in the atoning
work of Christ effected by His death—assuming for the moment that He was crucified—
on the ground, more especially, that such "belief" is futile and ineffective. They point out
that sin, and punishment for sin, are not thereby eliminated from the life of the believer.
"In daily life we see that a Christian who offends against the law of the land is not saved
from its consequences for the reason that Jesus has died for his sins and saved him
thereby from punishment"—a "Christian thief" gets the same punishment as a "Hindu
thief".2
And that same journal, in answer to a Muslim's question about salvation, recently
said, "Christianity teaches that salvation depends on faith in an historical event that Jesus
died on the cross. According to the plainest common sense it is wrong. A man who leads
a most wicked life is certainly not entitled to salvation simply because he says that he
believes in the crucifixion of Jesus". Yet one more quotation: "Had there been any truth
in the dogma of atonement, every grade of Christian society should have morally
benefited
1
Romans, 5: 6.
2
The Light, 16 Sept. 1933.
by its wholesome influence in practical life".1 All of which goes to show how little, still,
the average Muslim understands of what is meant by salvation through Christ.2
ISLAMIC VIEWS ABOUT GOD AND MAN
Yet, in reality, their repudiation of such a doctrine has its root in something
deeper—it is to be traced, as a rule, to the typical Islamic conception of Allah. As met
with both in the Qur’ān and in prevalent Muslim thought, that conception may for the
purpose before us be summarised as follows:
(a) God is Almighty—He does whatever He pleases, and is answerable to no one.
That view-point could be illustrated by several quotations from the Qur’ān, but
one must suffice at this place.
"Who hath the least power against God if His Will were to destroy Christ,
the son of Mary, and his mother, and all—everyone that is on the earth? For to God
belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between. He
createth what He pleaseth. Verily, God is Almighty," 5: 19-20.
(b) God is Merciful—He forgives whomsoever He pleases,
e.g "God will not forgive the union of other gods with Himself. But He
forgiveth anything else to whom He pleaseth", 4: 51.
So primary and emphatic is this conviction about the dominating and arbitrary
will of God that the Muslim sees no place, and no necessity, for any "atonement".
But for the Christian the need is apparent if only because he knows from sad
experience that the heart of man is deceitful
1
Unity versus Trinity, a tract, p. 45.
2
It does not seem to be realised that Christianity is essentially a personal, not a national or racial
religion. Unfortunately, very many people in "Christendom", as the West is sometimes erroneously called,
make no profession whatever of following Christ, and no one in the West would ever think of calling them
"Christians".
HOW CHRIST SAVES 127
above all things and desperately wicked.1 Does, then, the teaching of Islam about man
essentially differ from this? The answer is that, while the evil of man's heart is admitted,
considerable variety of opinion exists as to the means available for eradicating that evil.
In order to make clear, by contrast, Christian belief in the necessity for an act of God, we
must devote some space to considering Muslim teaching about the nature of man.
The verse in the Qur’ān most often quoted in this connection is,
"God desireth to make your burden light, for man hath been created weak",
wakhuliqa’l-insānu za'īfan, 4: 32.
The context has to do with sexual intercourse. Maulana Muhammad Ali's

comment is,
"These verses speak of Allah's great mercy in having shown man the way to
truth and guidance, for man, being created weak, could not chalk out a way for
himself which was free from error. That is all that man's weakness here signifies".
In other words, while man is represented as universally sinful in act, this is due
not to a nature radically sinful but to his weakness—he may have "lost paradise", but he
is not thereby estranged from Allah. Thus the late Khwaja Kamal-ud-din once stated
"The Qur’ān does not admit that sin was innate in human nature, and that man was, by his
own actions, incapable of freeing himself from its bondage".2
ISLAMIC TEACHING ABOUT SIN
Again, sin is usually represented as rebellion against, and opposition to, the
commands of Allah—the doing of that which is "forbidden", harām, or the omission of
duties that are "obligatory," fard or wājib.
1
Jeremiah, 17: 9.
2
Muslim India, I, 6; p. 207, 1913.
The principal terms in the Qur’ān are,

1. ithm,1 according to Lane, a sin, crime, offence, or act of disobedience. cp. "And
he who uniteth gods with God hath devised a great wickedness", ithman ‘azīman, (i.e.
shirk), 4: 51; also, "Those who avoid the heinous things of crime—kabā’ir-al-ithm—(i.e.
the "great sins"), and filthiness", wa’l-fawāhish, 42: 35.
2. jurm, as found in the form mujrim, or in parts of the verb from the same root—
the signification, according to Lane, being the same as that of ithm.
3. dhanb, a sin, crime, unlawful deed, transgression, or act of disobedience. "It
differs", says Lane, "from ithm in being either intentional or committed through
inadvertence, whereas ithm is peculiarly intentional".2 A prayer in frequent use among
Muslims is, Astaghfiru’l-llāhū Rabbī min kull-i-dhanbīm wa atūbu alaihe, "I ask
forgiveness of Allah, my Lord, for all my sins, and I repent before Him".
Other terms are khatā, zulm, junāh, sayyi’a, ‘isyān.
The Qur’ān makes mention of some of the more grave sins, viz. covetousness, 92:
8-11; pride, 17: 39-40; envy, 113: 5; extravagance, 17: 28-29 and 7: 29; niggardliness, 4:
41; ostentation, 4: 42; cheating, 83: 1-6; suspicion, 49: 12; slander, 4: 112 and 60: 12;
theft, 60: 12.3 These, and
1
Heb. ‫שׁם‬ ָ‫אָ‬
2
It should be remarked that Muhammad Ali, having admitted in his note (393) on the use of this term at
3: 9 that in the Qur’ān it "is applied to all shades of shortcomings, from the grossest transgressions of the
wicked to those defects and imperfections of which even the most perfect mortal cannot be free",
contradicts that statement in note (2194) on 40: 57, where he comments on the use of this very term in
reference to Muhammad, saying, "the word does not actually mean sin."
3
cp. a very similar list in the novel Taubatu’n Nisū, by Nazīr Ahmad, p. 22. He, too, commences his
catalogue with shirk.
others like them, are classed as the "great sins", kabā'ir-al-ithm, or gunāh-i-kabīra.1
Muslim jurists have compiled lists of these, of which the following is typical; shirk,
constantly committing "little sins" (gunāh-i-saghīra), despairing of God's mercy,
considering one's self safe from the wrath of God, false witness, accusing a virtuous
Muslim man or woman with adultery, taking a false oath, the practice of magic, drinking
wine, taking usury, misappropriation of the property of orphans, adultery, unnatural
crime, theft, murder, fleeing in battle before the face of an infidel enemy, disobedience to
parents.2 The "seven deadly sins" are, shirk, murder, false charge of adultery,
misappropriating the property of orphans, usury, desertion in battle, and disobedience to
parents.3
As pointed out in a previous chapter, the sin of sins, the sin that comprehends and
surpasses all other sins alike in the Qur’ān and in the mind of Muslims, is the one that
heads every one of these lists without exception, viz, shirk; for it is tantamount to
idolatry. It is the one sin that Allah "does not forgive".4 One cannot but compare this
feature with the teaching of Jesus. He taught that life was more than creed and conduct
than ritual,5 and He reserved His severest censure for the sin of blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit of God.6 The Hebrew prophet's warning is not dissimilar, "Woe unto those
that call evil good and good evil……that put darkness for light and light for darkness".7
There is the utmost significance for Religion in the contrast presented by these two points
of view.
1
gunāh is the Persian word for sin most commonly used by Indian Muslims.
2
T. P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p. 594.
3
cp. Mishkātu'l Masābih, Book I, Ch. 2, Pt. I, trans. Matthews, Vol. I, pp. 18-19; where magic displaces
disobedience to parents.
4
4: 51, 116.
5
Mt. 22: 34-50.
6
Mt. 12: 31-32
7
Isaiah, 5: 20.
WHAT THE QUR’ĀN SAYS ABOUT FATE AND HELL
The teaching of the Qur’ān about Fate1 throws further light on the Muslim
conception of, and attitude towards, sin. It is there asserted that the fate of man, whatever
happens, great or small, has been fixed by the eternal and unalterable decree of Allah, e.g.
"All things have We created after a fixed decree. Our command was one
word, swift as the twinkling of an eye," 54: 49-50.
The doctrine is often urged, quite legitimately, as the ground of resignation and
patience under misfortune, or equanimity on the occasion of success, as well as of
calmness in circumstances of danger; much after the manner, indeed, of a Christian
prayer of three centuries ago: "Teach me to submit to Thy providence in all things; to be
content in all changes of person and condition; to be temperate in prosperity, and in
adversity to be meek, patient and resigned".2
Unfortunately, however, Quranic teaching is not always restricted to such
innocent purposes. Consider what must be the effect of such pronouncements as these:
"Allah will mislead whom He pleaseth, and whom He pleaseth He will place
upon the straight path," 6: 39.
"Whom Allah causeth to err, no guide shall there be for him," 13: 33; cp. 2:
26; 9: 116.
"Everyman's fate have we fastened about his neck," 17: 14.
"Had thy Lord pleased He would have made mankind of one religion; but
only those to whom thy Lord hath granted mercy will cease to differ. And unto this
hath He created them; for the word of the Lord shall be fulfilled, "I will wholly fill
jahannam, hell, with jinn and men," 11: 120.
On this last verse the Ahmadi commentator says,
"Because they went against the ways which Allah had mercifully shown to
them, therefore they must pass through another
1
taqdīr rather than qismat.
2
Jeremy Taylor, (1613-1667).
ordeal, so that they may be purged of evil and made fit for spiritual progress."1
That ordeal is Hell, a place of the most frightful torment, of which the Qur’ān and
the Traditions have much to say:
"On that day the wicked shall be dragged into the fire on their faces: Taste
ye the touch of Hell," 54: 48.
"For the evil doers is a wretched home—Hell—wherein they shall be
burned: how wretched a bed! Even so. Let them taste it—boiling water and gore,
and other things of kindred sort," 38: 55-58.
"Those who disbelieve our signs We will in the end cast into Hell-Fire; so
oft as their skins shall be thoroughly burnt, We will change them for fresh skins, that
they may taste the torment. Verily, God is Mighty, Wise," 4: 59.
"On that day We will cry to Hell, ‘Art thou full?' And it shall say, ‘Are there
more?'," 50: 29.2
Why have we gone to the trouble of citing these verses? It is not by way of
finding fault with the Qur’ān—that is not our business—but to show how next to
impossible it must be for the average Muslim, brought up on such ideas, to perceive that
sin is, essentially, wrong done to the Holy Love of God. Allah is depicted as, and
believed to be, so utterly "Other".3 He is an arbitrary Being, zabardast, "overbearing". He
does what He likes, and favours "whom He pleases". As for man, he is the ‘abd, banda,4
or slave of Allah; and his very offences are believed to have been predetermined by an
inexorable fate, while towering above them all is that awful bogey, shirk. Nor does one
find in the Qur’ān words of reassurance for men in sin, such as these:
1
Note 1210.
2
The absence of any real comment on these terrible verses in the works of modern Muslim expositors is
highly significant.
3
But cp. Mt. 7: 11.
4
‘abd, Arabic; banda, Persian.
"As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but
that the wicked should turn from his way and live," Ezek. 33: 11.
"(God) will have all men to be saved," 1 Tim. 2: 4.
"The Lord is not willing that any should perish," 2 Peter, 3: 9.1
THE TEACHING OF ISLAM ABOUT SALVATION
What means, then, are provided by the Qur’ān and Islam for the salvation of the
wicked? No more momentous question, surely, can be put than this, and by the answer
given we must judge whether in reality Islam is, as is being claimed today, "the religion
for humanity", and the Qur’ān the Book which "humanity needs for its redemption".
We propose to quote extracts on the subject from the writings of acknowledged
exponents of Islam. The first is from the pen of Maulvi Mohammad Ali, M. A., in a tract
written some years ago.2
"The Holy Qur’ān has repeatedly said that the means whereby a person can
attain to salvation have existed from all eternity as God Himself is eternal, and it
rejects the doctrine which represents Him as having come to the conclusion after
long ages that all other means of the attainment of salvation having failed, He should
give salvation to mankind by submitting Himself to death. A person can, in fact, be
said to have attained salvation only when all his sensual passions are burned down,
and the will of God becomes his will, when he is so completely annihilated in the
love of God that he retains no trace of his own self and knows God to be all in all;
and his words and deeds and movements and intentions are all for the sake of God;
when he feels in his heart of hearts that all his happiness is in God only and that a
separation from Him,
1
Further, cp. Qur’ān, 11: 20 (quoted above) with John, 3: 16-17.
2
Has any Book been revealed by God, if so, which? pp. 28-34. Published by The Mohammedan Tract
and Book Depot, Lahore. The writer of this tract is no other than the, now, President of the Ahmadi
Community in Lahore, author of the commentary.
even for an instant, is death to him……When the flame of the perfect love of God is
lighted within him and he hates sin as the most detestable thing in the world, when
he loves God with a love far greater than that with which men love their wives and
children and near relatives……It is when a person reaches this stage of the love of
God that all his sensual passions are burned like chaff with the fire of love, and a
mighty transformation is brought about within him. Then he is granted a heart which
he had not before……This is the condition which is termed salvation, for in this
condition the soul, falling down at the threshold of God with burning love, finds
everlasting rest……Human nature is so made that it has love of God hidden within
it, and when that love is cleansed of every kind of dross by the purity of the
soul……it becomes a mirror for the reflection of the Divine Light"……(here
follows a passage about the relation of the Islamic doctrine of Shafa‘at, or
intercession, to this process of renewal).
The writer, however, realizes that such a stage of perfection is not easily reached,
and so he addresses himself to the question as to how man is to achieve it.
"It is the most difficult thing for a man to attain to a certainty relating to the
existence of God, and to have generated in his heart the strong faith that obedience
to God is the source of peace and happiness in this life as well as the next, and that
going against His will, is the root of all afflictions. If this conviction comes to a man,
he shuns every evil, for he knows it for certain that his evil deeds are watched by
God who can turn this very life into a hell for him. It is evident that everybody shuns
what he knows to be certainly harmful to him. No one thrusts his hand into a hole
which to his certain knowledge has a snake in it, nor does anybody devour what he
knows to be poison. To shun these harmful things he does not stand in need of any
atonement, nor does he ever consider it necessary that anyone should be crucified to
save him from these evils. All that he requires is certain knowledge that there is
harm in the thing, and this is sufficient to make him fly from it. No one ever
knowingly leaps into destruction. Even the patient avoids the taking of a food which
he knows would endanger life."
But even Mr. Mohammad Ali recognizes that mere knowledge of what is evil is
not enough; the facts of life are proof to the contrary. He, therefore, seeks next to meet
the question, why is it that even when a man knows he still falls into sin? He says:
"The answer is clear, because he has not as sure a conviction of the harm of
sin as of the physical things mentioned above. It is, therefore, beyond the shadow of
a doubt that what a man needs to avoid sin is, not atonement, but a certain faith in
the existence of God and a strong conviction that sin against Him is rank poison.
With this faith and this conviction reigning supreme in his heart, man is as sure to
fly from sin as he flies from a venomous reptile. We have thus established beyond
all doubt that the daring with which sins are committed is due only to want or
weakness of faith in God and His retribution."
At the end of it all we seem to be very much where we were when we started—in
fact, it is a glaring illustration of arguing in a circle. But, in reality, all this effusive
language boils down to a single sentence—once a sinful man is convinced that the Living
God will "give him hell" he is driven to obey through sheer fear of the consequences. But
is he?
We shall next consider an exposition of the Islamic theory that "for the attainment
of salvation the very nature of man calls for a mediator". Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of
Qadian dealt with this in the preface to a book on the sinlessness of prophets in general.1
Arguing that everyone feels that he stands in need of the assistance of "some
strong and mighty hand", to rescue him from the evils of ignorance, sensual passion, and
recurring temptations, and to enable him "to break loose from sin", he says it is all
because man "has been created weak", and
1
Sinlessness of Prophets (from The Review of Religions, Qadian), pp. 1-2. Pubd. by The Mohammadan
Tract and Book Depot, Lahore The Mirza takes intercessor to be equivalent to mediator.
therefore "cannot trust his own weak nature for a moment"……"The voice of conscience
continually draws our attention to our own sad failings and to the necessity of obtaining
assistance from some other higher source."
What part, then, has God in this matter? The Mirza tells us:
"Almighty God sits high on the throne of sanctity and transcendent purity,
while the masses of mankind are drowned in deep in the sinks of iniquity and the
pits of darkness. On account of the absence of all resemblance between the trans-
cendent Divine purity and human pollution, the generality of mankind does not
occupy a position in which, available itself of the grace of God, it can attain
salvation through its own efforts. Divine Wisdom and Mercy have, therefore,
ordained that certain perfect individuals whom nature has endowed with excellences
far above their fellow-beings, should serve as mediators between himself and the
masses of mankind. Men of this type are granted by nature a proper share of the
divine attributes and the best human qualities. Thus on account of their fitness for
the realization of things Divine, they draw the grace of heaven towards them(selves)
and call down upon them(selves) the blessings of God, and on account of their
possessing the human qualities, they transmit the grace and blessings which they
have drawn from above to their fellow-creatures below. Upon them the holy spirit
descends from above and they infuse a spirit into others."1
The Mirza proceeds from this to state that sinlessness is essential in the
intercessor. Further,
"What a person needs to be an intercessor is a two-fold relation, and reason

attests to the truth of this fact. An extra-ordinary connection with God and a deep
sympathy for human beings, can alone enable a man to intercede for the latter with
the former……Our Holy Prophet, having attained all the excellences of the nearness
of God and his full share of the
1
Mohammad Ali, in loc. cit. contents himself with saying that the "dark" natures among mankind are
"lighted by the rays" from these "bright natures". "Such is the true nature of intercession."
Divine manifestation returned (i.e. from his 'ascension towards God'), invested with
all the Divine morals, to humanity, and thus having attained all the excellences and
holy attributes of humanity, sympathy and love of mankind, he had the other side of
his nature perfected……He thus acquired a position midway between God and
men…… In his holy person were, therefore, combined the two qualifications of an
intercessor."1
The orthodox masses put their faith not only in Muhammad's intercession but also
in salvation by works;2 and for this, too, abundant support is to be found in the Qur’ān:
"Happy now the believers who humble themselves in prayer, and who keep
aloof from vain words. And who are doers of alms deeds, and who restrain their
appetities……and who tend well their trusts and their covenants and who keep
strictly to their prayers: These shall be inheritors, who shall inherit paradise, and
abide there for ever", 23: 1-11.
"Give ye your alms openly? it is well. Do ye conceal them and give them to
the poor? This, too, will be of advantage to you, and will do away your sins: and
God is cognisant of your actions", 2: 273.
"They whose balances shall be heavy, shall be the blest. But they whose
balances shall be light—these are they who shall lose their souls, abiding in hell for
ever", 23: 104-5.
With this is included resignation to God and obedience to Muhammad:
"Whoso shall obey God, and His Apostle, and shall dread God and fear
Him, these are they that shall be the blissful", 24: 51. "But whoso believe, and do the
things that are right, and believe in that which hath been sent down to Muhammad—
for it is the truth from their Lord—their sins will He cancel, and dispose their hearts
aright", 47: 2.
1
op. cit., pp. 8, 10.
2
cp. A Mohammadan brought to Christ, the autobiography of Rev. Imad-ud-din, D.D., pp. 12-14. Pubd.
C.M.S., London.
CONFLICTING VIEWS AMONG MUSLIMS
Among Muslims, as sometimes among Christians, we find conflicting views on

this important subject. For instance, Maulana Muhammad Ali in note (156) cites the
following verse as summarizing the Quranic doctrine of salvation,
"Whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and is the doer of good to

others, he has his reward with his Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they
grieve", 2: 106.
and adds,
"That, and only that, is salvation according to the Holy Qur’ān".
He confirms this impression in his latest book, where he devotes only one short
paragraph to the question of salvation in a volume of 800 pages.1 Yet, in his note (2746)
on 91: 10 he says, "note the Quranic law of salvation: it is the purification of the soul
from all dross that makes a man attain the goal"; and in his note (1571) on 19: 93, he says
that the particular point stressed in this chapter "establishes the doctrine that for the
forgiveness of a sinner God does not require to be paid any compensation……This
directly contradicts the doctrine of atonement, which is the basis of the theory of the
divinity of Jesus".
A few years ago a poser on this question was put to the readers of a vernacular
Muslim journal in North India,2 which sought to know which of two persons would be
nājī, probable recipient of salvation, and which nārī, doomed to the fire (nār) of Hell.
The question was put thus:
The one who is born a Muslim, is regular at his daily prayers, keeps the
prescribed fast, even says the midnight (optional)
1
The Religion of Islam, A comprehensive discussion of its sources, principles and practices, p. 458.
Pubd. by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman, Lahore, 1936.
2
Nigār, an Urdu monthly, Lucknow, Jan. 1931.
prayer and is given to holy incantations, but his practical life is one of deceit and
duplicity, evil and lies, ill-will towards others and misanthropy.
Or
One, a Brahmin who is born a kāfir and polytheist, wedded heart and soul to
the worship of his idols, but, at the same time, his daily life is devoted to the service
of his fellow-men, the care of orphans, and sympathy for widows, and who is a
blessing to society?
The question in that form was submitted by the editor to 32 of the leading ‘Ulama,
doctors of Islamic law, of India. Only 16 undertook to make reply. The list of these
contained the names of those supposed to be "the brightest stars in the religious
firmament of Muslim India". An analysis of the published replies reveals the fact that
while seven voted definitely in favour of the Muslim, nine were just as emphatically
against the Hindu.1 The most typical form of reply was, "The Muslim, however, sinful, is
not nārī. Mere profession of Islam wards off Hell-fire. The kāfir no matter what a
blessing his life may be to his fellow-men, will have no credit for it, but ‘must pack off to
hell'".
The correspondence called forth some characteristic comments from the editor of
The Light, Lahore.2 He said,
"In the first place, the question, as it stands, puts one on the wrong track.
There is no such thing in Islam as najāt, in the sense of salvation.3 It is a Christian
idea imported into Islam, implying that sin is the normal state of this life, and the
highest of our ambition should be to get rid of that sin. That is a basic mistake which
Islam came to rectify. Islam gives najāt to man at his very birth, to man as such, be
he a Muslim or a non-Muslim, believer or kāfir. All children, according to a saying
of the Prophet, are born Muslims. So
1
See Appendix A, p. 217 for ten of these replies.
2
I March, 1931.
3
It is a remarkable fact that the term najāt, salvation, occurs only once in the Qur’ān, 40: 44.
najāt is given us as our very start. What is wanted of us, or better still, what we are
here for and what religion has come for, is that by observing certain rules of conduct
in this life, we may work out our self-unfoldment to the highest point." On another
occasion the same paper stated that "Islam teaches that a pure and virtuous life is the
only way to Heaven."
This is in keeping with a statement made in the same journal concerning that
which the Lahore Anjuman believes and stands for—viz. that the Muslim can "generate"
self-reliance. But the editor's remarks called forth an indignant protest from a reader who
said, "it is ridiculous to say, according to Islam, that a man leading pure life in a moral
sense, but not accepting the Unity of God, is entitled to salvation".1
Nevertheless, that was the kind of statement made in the course of a reply in this
same paper, a few years previously, to a distracted correspondent in Baghdad, who had
addressed to the editor the following pitiful letter:
"I am a girl of twenty, and from the age of twelve I have done every sin that
you can think of. In fact, I have tasted of every leaf of the tree of life. Alas! there is
nothing left for me but Hell when I die. I ask you sincerely what am I to do to be
saved? I have put this question to a priest. He has told me to repent, but the truth is I
cannot repent, as what I have done I have enjoyed doing, though it was a sin. Now
will you advise me what I am to do so as to be saved from Hell?
Again the momentous question—how does Islam propose to meet a case like that?
Here is the reply that was given:
"Turn a new leaf. Lead a righteous life hence forward. This alone can wash
off past sins. This is the only true atonement. Sins are washed off, the Qur’ān
assures us, by good deeds and these alone."2
1
1 June, 1931.
2
cp. 11: 116. The Light, August, 1927.
But that wretched girl's need was to have her love of sinning eradicated, and for that no
remedy was forthcoming. After this can it be seriously contended that Islam possesses
real knowledge of the way of salvation?
One last quotation before we leave this survey; it comes from the pen of Mr.
Muhammad Ali, in the tract he wrote some years ago:
“The truth is that no one can attain to salvation by his own deeds, for
salvation can only be attained by the grace of God ".1
That, surely, is an intuition of the truth!

* * * *
If this rapid survey has done nothing else it has certainly brought us face to face
with a great need and a great task—a service of supreme importance which we owe to
Muslims. That task is to lift God's character out of the category in which Islam keeps it.2
We need to lead them to a worthier view of the Divine Being, by stressing—as we have
sought to do in an earlier chapter—His Holiness, Righteousness and Love. Their
conception of Allah is so one-sided that they fail to grasp the truth about man, sin and
salvation. It is for this reason, primarily, that they fail to see the real significance of Jesus
Christ for sinful men.
1
Has any Book been revealed, etc., p. 28. The italics are ours. The present writer recently heard Mr.
Yusuf Ali make the statement, in a public lecture on the contribution of Islam to the religious life, "the
grace of God goes out to meet the sinner in his need".
2
"In the Muhammadan religion" wrote Hegel, "God is conceived only as 'Lord'. Now, although this
conception of God is an important and necessary step in the development of the religious consciousness,
e.g. 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom', it yet by no means exhausts the depths of the
Christian idea of God". Werke, Vol. vi, p. 226.
This service also is required of us—that we help them to see the quality and
costliness of Divine Forgiveness, and that sincere repentance is an indispensable
condition of that forgiveness; though it must be admitted that many Muslims are aware of
the primary importance of sincerity in this matter.
We can shew them that the measure of a man's penitence is the measure of his
sense of sin,1 and in this way go on to affirm that it is only by meditating on the fact, and
meaning, and purpose of the Death of Christ on the Cross, that we can come to hold a
worthier view of God and a more adequate conception of sin. It must always be a matter
of grief to us that so many of them deprive themselves of just the very help man gets
from the contemplation of this fact, by denying the fact itself.
WHAT, THEN, IS INVOLVED IN SALVATION?
In the entreaty of that Baghdad girl we perceive that she thought of salvation—as
do many, not only Muslims—in it terms of "escape from Hell-fire". Yet in reality the
problem is not so much to achieve escape from hell—desperate though some feel that
need to be—as to have one's sinful nature changed and so to become reconciled to the
God from whom, by sin, we are in fact "estranged". The very springs of man's nature, on
its physical as well as its moral side, need to be cleansed and directed into right channels.
The average man is sin-haunted, and, in consequence, distracted in mind and spirit. He
needs the expulsive power of some new affection, which will unify life for him. This is
the burden of all Biblical teaching, but not of the Qur’ān.
Just at this point it needs to be seen clearly by us, and explained no less clearly to
the Muslim, that it is not God
1
cp. Luke, 7: 47.
who requires to be reconciled. He is anxious for the breach to be healed; He always is, for
He is Love.1 It is, therefore, entirely erroneous to think that Christ, by the sacrifice of
Himself, was trying to extract something for men from a reluctant God. "The Cross", as
has often been said, "did not change God's attitude to men, it revealed His eternal
attitude".2
On the contrary, man is the obstacle to reconciliation—for he is self-willed and
rebellious—enslaved in sin. It is our belief, as Christians, that whereas it is true that man is
born into this world with a God-given capacity to respond to the influence of the Holy
Spirit, yet just as truly he comes with "a transmitted tendency to selfishness", which is the
very root of all sin. And experience, even Muslim experience, amply confirms this.
Therefore the problem involved in salvation is to change, not God, but man, so as to
make him desire to be reconciled to God, the Heavenly Father. It is in the face of this
stark fact that we see how far from reality many a Muslim is when he declares there is no
need for any such act as may be called atonement.
It becomes necessary at this place to consider the real nature of SIN. Rightly
understood, it is an attitude of antagonism to the proffered love of the All-Holy and All-
Loving God, and indifference to His Will. The incomparable parable of the Prodigal Son,
in the teaching of Jesus, throws a flood of light both on the nature of sin and its
consequences. By means of it we see that the son's offence lay not so much in his act, as
in his attitude to his father. And, indeed, we get nearer to the truth of the matter when we
pass from speaking of "sins" to the use of the comprehensive term SIN. The parable also
brings out, with unmistakable clarity, the fact
1
cp. John, 3: 16, "God so loved the world……"
2
cp. Weatherhead, His Life and Ours, p. 276.
that sin's great achievement is, notwithstanding Muslim teaching, the tragic separation of
man from God, the son from his Heavenly Father.1
This estrangement, and all it involves, is sin's "punishment". And no truth, in this
connection, needs stronger emphasis than this—sin itself "punishes", in that it degrades
and destroys man. Part of that punishment is first observed by others, in the depravity of
soul and lack of self-respect in the sinner—a kind of death in life; but with the return of
self-consciousness the sinner himself suffers the most awful torments of shame and
agony of mind. Who says that any man, even a professed believer in Jesus Christ, escapes
such punishment of sin—not to speak of civil punishment—on the ground that Christ
died to save him? Such an assertion is only a travesty of the truth. And to those endowed
with finer perception there is, in the realization by the sinner of his shame and separation
from God, punishment enough; what need is there for more?
HOW DOES CHRIST'S DEATH AFFECT THE SINNER?
What bearing, then, has the death of Christ on man's sinful nature, and in what
sense can it be said to effect salvation for him?
Let us consider briefly what it does not and cannot do. As just stated, it does not
exempt the "believer", if he sin, from the proper punishment, moral or civil, involved in
his offence. Neither can it restore his innocence again, nor yet efface entirely the
consequences of sin, in the mind and in the body. That is the burden of Paul's lament as
represented by an English poet:
"Point me the sum and shame of my betraying,

Show me, O Love, thy wounds which I have made!
1
cp. Luke, 15: 11-32.
Yes, thou forgivest, but with all forgiving

Canst not renew mine innocence again:
Make thou, O Christ, a dying of my living,
Purge from the sin but never from the pain!
So shall all speech of now and of tomorrow,

All He hath shown me or shall show me yet,
Spring from an infinite and tender sorrow,
Burst from a burning passion of regret!"1
That is one of the precious results of the death of Christ—the creation of a highly
sensitive conscience.
Yes, there are some things that that death cannot do for us, but, thank God, there
meets us at the point of our need His GRACE, the grace that mitigates the worst results of
sin and transmutes them into some rare thing which otherwise could not have been.
Indeed, we "thankfully acknowledge that sin and weakness, overcome through the grace
of God, have become a part of good which could not have been exactly as it is without
them".2
GOD'S CHOSEN WAY
We are now in a position to state, without qualification, the chief significance of

the death of Christ for sinful man. It is God's chosen means for reconciling the sinner to
Himself: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself".3 It is, for that reason, the
best way for changing the sinful heart of man and bringing him back to God. It is not, as
has at times been represented even by Christian writers, "the payment of a debt", or a
kind of "compensation" to God4;
1
F. W. H. Myres, Saint Paul.
2
W. R. Matthews, op. cit., p. 268.
3
2 Cor. 5: 19.
4
Against the use by Jesus, once, of the metaphor ransom of Himself (Mt. 20: 28) we need to set His
frequent description of His work as that of "saving the lost", cp. Lk. 19: l0, and the whole of Lk. 15.
"Ransom", as used by Him, rather implies the release of the enslaved. cp. W. E. Wilson, The Problem of the
Cross, pp. 71-72.
nor yet the satisfying of some laws of justice, as though God's laws were something other
than Himself. No, God Himself takes the initiative in this matter. It is He who draws near
to us, not we to Him—He comes to us "in Christ" and in the death of Christ, that He may
impart to us the life abundant.
That death, in the first place, is the revelation of three great facts:
the suffering heart of God—"there is something like CALVARY at the heart of

the Eternal".
the Divine hatred of sin and its utter condemnation—because God is Holy and
because sin destroys His children, His soul "hates iniquity".1
the yearning of the Father's heart for His lost and erring children—the Love
revealed in the Cross of Christ is God's own love.2 Unless the Passion we look
upon in that Cross were a Divine Passion it would not, it could not, avail to
change man's relation to God.3
If, then, by His death Christ was not paying some debt instead of man, nor yet
satisfying some laws of justice, what was it He achieved beyond revealing to us the heart
of God? If, by way of answer, we were to compress the teaching of the New Testament
writers into a single phrase, we should say it was that "He suffered on our behalf".
"He gave Himself up for me", says Paul, Gal. 2: 20.

"Christ also suffered on your behalf"; and
"He bore our sins", says Peter, 1 Pet. 2: 21 and 24.
For, in view of the Redemptive Purpose of God in Christ, it seemed "necessary

that human experience as conditioned by the sin of men should become the personal
experience
1
Isaiah, 1: 14.
2
Romans, 5: 8 (Rev. Ver.).
3
See Appendix B, p. 219.
of God the Son—not an object of external observation but of "inward feeling".1

This is a theme to which no one can do justice, one which no one can exhaust, yet
we may try to understand something of what Jesus "suffered" there, and the sense in
which it was "for us”.
He suffered in that He bore the shame of man's sin—that shame was
epitomized in the ribaldry of the soldiers, in the spitting, the scourging, and
nakedness.2
"We see Thee best in Him who came,

To bear for us the cross of shame."
He suffered in that He saw sin as it had never been seen before. He saw it
even as God sees it—an affront to His Holy Love, and as blight in the soul of man.
His pure soul came into contact with sin in all its beastliness, and He
loathed it with utter loathing, thereby condemning it. As at His Baptism, He here
stooped down to identify Himself, as the Son of Man, with sinful men.
Moreover, He suffered in that He bore the bitter fruit of man's sin—the
awful agony of a sense of "separation" from the Father; the withdrawal of the
consciousness of that dear Presence. It was in the extreme anguish of utter
desolation that the cry was wrung from His heart, in the words of Psalm 22, "My
God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"3
Further, He experienced the bitterness of death in such circumstances—
after a life in which He had spent Himself in the service of others; and, "unkindest
cut of
1
Archbishop Temple, C.V., p. 140.
2
cp. S. M. Zwemer, The Glory of the Cross, Ch. 5.
3
Mt. 27: 46.
all", on a gibbet used for criminals. He drained the bitter cup.

Thus He offered to God, on our behalf, the sacrifice of a perfect human life,
"made perfect through suffering"; and it was a sacrifice well-pleasing to God. But there
was no "antagonism" between the Father and the Son, as has sometimes been
represented, because in Christ "God Himself bowed down to bless us".
HOW CHRIST SAVES US
Martin Luther used to say, you must begin with the wounds of Christ; and that is
so. If we would form a true estimate as to what our sin means to God, we must see it in
that Cross. Already we have tried to sound the depths of what that suffering meant to
Jesus, and to understand something of the place and purpose in it of God Himself. Now,
it is when the Holy Spirit takes these things of Christ and reveals them to us—when in
that outrage and that agony we perceive, through the Spirit's help, what sin has caused the
One who loves us—it is then that something happens.1
That tragic story,
stabs man broad awake—the dying Christ can make us hate sin like hell! This is
what we mean by "conviction of sin".
it melts the hardened heart—inducing "contrition for sin".
and brings us back to God—i.e. "conversion to righteousness of life".2
1
Nevertheless, it should be stated here that as widely various as the human personalities which
apprehend this "revelation" is the work of that Redeeming Death; so that theories about it are not so much
alternative, as complementary.
2
An authentic story is told of how, some years ago, a daughter of godly parents sinned and deceived
them about the matter. She had
Thus something has happened in man that makes it possible for the grace and
power of God to work effectively in his heart. He now comes to God surrendering his
life, and craving God's pardon; for man must have forgiveness if he is to live in God's
sight. The way had been blocked before—blocked by man's antagonism to the Will of
God. But with this change of heart the dynamic of God's forgiveness is released. God, we
agree, is always willing to forgive—the Old Testament affords many reassurances on that
point,1 for "the principle of redemption is rooted in the very nature of things".
Nevertheless, forgiveness only becomes effective in the case of the truly penitent.
And yet, of course, of this Divine mystery also it is true that there is much about it
that we do not understand: but this we know—men are set free from the grip of sin by the
indwelling Christ. He comes to our distracted and defeated lives as Master, and, by
removing conflicts within, He unifies life around Himself.2 That Cross of His has
somehow proved, and still proves to be, the very power of God for all high endeavour
and victorious living. Men everywhere need
consented to the sin and came to shame. Her mother tried to win her confidence and get her to speak the
truth. She persistently denied the deed, until at last she consented to go with her mother to see the doctor.
On their return home, when all was known, the mother said not a word, but with a broken heart kissed her
daughter good night. When they met next day the daughter saw that her mother's hair had turned white in
the night. There had been no word of reproach or bitterness on the mother's part; but the girl saw herself at
last as the innocent eye of the mother had seen her, as love saw her, as love alone could suffer for her. That
vision of love broke her own heart. After an agony of penitence she was won, in later years, to become a
devoted servant of Jesus Christ.
1
cp. Isaiah, 38: 17; 43: 25; Micah, 7: 18-19.
2
cp. Stanley Jones, Victorious Living, p. 29.
this assurance today, and what has proved true for one, will be found to be true for all.1
Thus man is "converted"; but, because of Muslim misunderstanding and
misrepresentation, it needs to be made clear that conversion and full salvation are not one
and the same thing, nor is that the teaching of the New Testament. Paul reminds us that
we have to "work out" our salvation.2 It is a life-long task, comprehended by the old term
"sanctification". It is, indeed, a gravely misleading notion that, at the moment of
conversion, or by mere confession of "belief" in Christ, salvation is so acquired that it is a
completed process and, as such, is retained all through life. On the contrary, without
subsequent growth in grace, conversion is robbed of a great deal of its meaning and
value. Conversion is but the beginning, not the end; and no man is really converted unless
he is constantly re-affirming his surrender.3 This truth has been well-expressed in the
poem on Saint Paul:
"Let no man think that sudden in a minute

All is accomplished and the work is done:
Though with thine earliest dawn thou shouldst begin it
Scarce were it ended in thy setting sun."
But the last word is the truest and the most wonderful of all—it is by grace that
we are saved, through faith; it is
1
Muslims sometimes assert, on the basis of such sayings in the gospels as "I was not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the House of Israel," (Mt. 15: 24), that the mission of Jesus was limited to the Jews. There is a
sense in which that was true. Jesus at the time was concentrating upon that privileged race. He was giving
them, to whom God had in the past shown such marked favour, one last chance to be God's instrument in
the establishment of a world-wide kingdom. But that He and His Gospel were for all men, is repeatedly
made clear, cp. Mt. 28: 19; Jo. 8: 12; 12: 32. See also a pamphlet, "Did Jesus Christ found a Universal
Religion"?; L. E. Browne, C.L.S., Madras.
2
Philip, 2: 12.
3
cp. A. C. Underwood, Conversion, Part III.
not of ourselves, not by our works—"it is the gift of God".1 Henceforth the love of God
in Christ constrains us.2
We therefore, as Christians, cordially welcome those expressions by leading
Muslims today, about the grace of God for sinful men.3 For if it is true that "the fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", may we not hope that such perception of the need
of the grace of God is the beginning of the discovery of His Redeeming Love in Christ?
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Clarke, W. N., Outline of Christian Theology, T. & T. Clark, 1901.

Moberly, R. C., Atonement and Personality.
Moberly, W. H., The Atonement, in Foundations, Macmillan, 1922.
Dale, R. W., The Atonement.
Forsyth, P. T., The Cruciality of the Cross, Hodder & Stoughton, 1909.
Denney, J., The Death of Christ, Hodder & Stoughton, 1911.
—The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, Hodder & Stoughton, 1917.
Wilson, W. E., The Problem of the Cross, Jas. Clarke, 1929.
Underwood, A. C., Conversion, Christian and non-Christian, Allen & Unwin, 1925.
Carnegie Simpson, The Fact of Christ, Hodder & Stoughton.
Gardner, W. R. W., The Quranic Doctrine of God, Man, Sin and Salvation, C.L.S.,
Madras, 1913-1916.
Gairdner, W. H. T., The Muslim Idea of God, C.L.S., Madras, 1909.
—Aspects of the Redemptive Act of Christ, C.L.S., 1916.
Goldsack, W., God in Islam, C.L.S., 1908.
Abdul Haq, Doctrine of Atonement, Mohammadan Tract Society, Lahore.
1
Ephesians, 2: 8-9.
2
2 Cor. 5: 14.
3
See above, p. 140.
CHAPTER
VII
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"The existence of a physical father, in whose lawful wedlock Jesus could have
been born, cannot be rationally inferred from the circumstances attending the birth. The
plain text of the Qur’ān also rejects such a supposition." (Qadiani) (pp. 156-7).
"The idea of the betrothal of Mary to Joseph and her subsequent conception by
him is ridiculously absurd, and contradicts the plain words of the Holy Qur’ān."
(Qadiani)
"It is a benefit which the Holy Qur’ān has benevolently conferred upon Jesus and
his mother that it made millions of men hold their tongues with respect to the suspicious
birth of Jesus. It enjoined upon them to believe in his birth without a father." (Qadiani)
(p. 167).
"Much stress is laid upon the birth of Jesus, but what are we to say of the first
man, the parent of mankind, who had neither father nor mother? We never consider him
God" (p. 162).
"The birth of Jesus is unattended with any such peculiarity as may entitle him to
divinity."
"The Quranic statement that Jesus had no father cannot serve as a weapon in the
hands of the Christian controversialist……He cannot avail himself of the testimony of
the Holy Qur’ān unless he first admits it to be a Divine Revelation." (Ahmadi).
CHAPTER VII
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
A CHANGED ATTITUDE
With this chapter we turn to consider a different aspect of the controversy

between Muslims and Christians—something foreign to the spirit of Islam, viz.: a new
hostility to, and criticism of, Christ Himself. Hitherto His name has occupied a place of
high regard among Muslims, and statements about Him in the Qur’ān and the Traditions
have had much to do with this. But during the last fifty years or so, there has been
apparent a spirit of vexation and bitterness, more especially among the rationalists,
because of criticisms, by missionaries, of both Islam and Muhammad.
That this really is one of the causes is admitted:
"The blame lies at the door of Christian missionaries. Had they refrained
from carping at the holy prophets of God and injuring Muhammadan feeling by
especially levelling their abusive, contemptuous and captious attacks at the Holy
Prophet of Arabia, the Muslims had no need to search the pages of Jewish writings
and the gospels for the failings of Jesus."1
The source from which much of the material for this new attack is drawn was the
one from whose writings we have just quoted, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1839-1908). His
name is still execrated by millions of orthodox Muslims. Only recently the Muslim editor
of a Lahore daily newspaper
1
Unity versus Trinity, pp. 23-24, cp. Has any Book been revealed, etc., p. 15.
found occasion to recall what he described as "the slanderous ravings" of this man
concerning Jesus Christ. He maintained that the Mirza had shown "studied hostility to the
basic teachings of Islam; but nowhere is this hostility more pronounced than when he
attacks Jesus Christ and [the] Virgin Mary". He stated that the Mirza, in his book
Chashma-i-Masihi ("The Fountain-head of Christianity") had "openly accused the Virgin
Mary of adultery, against the express teachings of the Holy Qur’ān", and that he
constantly spoke of Jesus as a "bastard".1
The significance of this changed attitude should not escape us. It really means that
certain desperate defenders of Islam and Muhammad have become aware that it is now a
case of Christ or Muhammad; and so, as a retort to the comments of Christian critics on
their prophet, they have gone the way of a certain type of Western rationalist, borrowing
their very arguments, in their determination to degrade the Founder of the Christian
Faith.2
In other words, much of the new anti-Christian polemic differs from the old in
that Jesus Himself, not dogmas about Him, is made the chief object of attack. It thus
comes about that, in spite of the plain statements of the Qur’ān and the common belief of
Muslims, the Ahmadis now deny His supernatural birth, His miracles, and His sinless
character. We shall be considering these matters in this and the two succeeding chapters.
Moreover, they repudiate the idea, also held by the great majority of Muslims, that Jesus
is alive, and assert that, since He died a natural death, there was no
1
The Urdu Zamindar, 24 November, 1934. The editor protested against the Mirza's books being
allowed "unrestricted publicity" throughout the length and breadth of India.
2
cp. The People of the Mosque, p. 230.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH 155
"resurrection on the third day", and that He will not "come again".1
A subsidiary, but none the less important, subject of Ahmadi attack is the
contention, also borrowed from certain Western writers, that Christianity is indebted for
its main ideas concerning Christ, to the mystery cults.2
Acquaintance with much of this new polemical literature makes it evident that
Christian apologists, in their eagerness to establish their contentions, have at times used
careless language as to what belongs to the essence of the Christian faith. This has not
only made for confusion in the minds of Muslims, but has afforded opportunity to these
new opponents to make capital out of unguarded and incompatible statements. Thus,
within the compass of one small book of 160
1
cp. Muhammad and Christ, by Muhammad Ali, Ch. 6; also the notes on 2: 68; 3: 138; 21: 95; 23: 102;
39: 43 in his commentary on the Qur’ān.
2
cp. "Does not this similarity involve an assumption that the events in connection with the life of Jesus
were borrowed from the same sources? (i.e. pagan cults). All these mythical gods were of virgin birth; they
came to redeem humanity from sin and its consequent punishment, and to redeem it through their blood;
their death for this purpose occurring on the Friday before Easter Sunday, on which day they all rose from
their tombs". The Sources of Christianity, p. 13, by Khwaja Kamal-ud-din, Woking, 1925. It is the fashion
nowadays to blame Paul for much of this—"Paul professedly ‘a Hebrew of the Hebrews' becomes a
‘Hellenist of the Hellenists'." But several facts rule out such a possibility, (a) the early Church consistently
refused to come to terms with the syncretistic religions, (b) it was precisely this refusal that led to the great
persecutions, and (c) what impressed the pagan world in the new religion was, not the familiarity, but the
difference. cp. J. S. Stewart, A Man in Christ, pp. 64-80. A most effective reply to Kamal-ud-din has been
written by Rev. Barakatullah, Lahore, in Urdu, Nuru'l-Hudā, P.R.B.S., Lahore.
pages we find the President of the "Ahmadiyya Anjuman" in Lahore, making these
assertions:
"The very basis of the Christian religion is laid in the exclusive sinlessness
of Jesus Christ" (p. 48).
"This low view of human nature (sc. original sin) forms the foundation-
stone of the Christian religion" (p. 50).
"The Christian religion laid its foundation on the death of Christ on the cross
and his subsequent rising" (p. 159).1
Again,
"Miracles are the only evidence on which the Deity of Jesus is supported."2
The hostility of which we have been speaking is manifested in some prefatory

remarks to articles published a few years ago in the Ahmadi Press, Lahore, on the birth of
Jesus.3 The writer there stated that,
"Islam and Christianity are engaged in a deadly struggle for world-mastery.

It is, therefore, in the best interest of Islam that Jesus should be brought down from
his divine pedestal. In crediting him with a miraculous birth as well as a miraculous
flight to heaven, the Musalmans are only confirming the Christian contention that
Jesus was divine, not human. It is, therefore, the crying call of the day to prove that
Jesus was born in exactly the same way as any other man is born, and that, like all
the rest of mortals, he too had to drink the cup of death."
In making this his object the Ahmadi writer is well aware that even now the
average Muslim "gets positively shocked" at the very idea that Jesus was born of a
human father;
1
Muhammad and Christ. This book sets out to demolish a 12-page Urdu tract, Haqāiq-i-Our’ān,
believed by Muhammad Ali to have been the work of a Christian writer. But that is not so; it was stated to
have been by a friendly Muslim maulvi—14 points from the Qur’ān to show the superiority of Jesus.
2
Unity versus Trinity, p. 70.
3
Since issued in the form of a booklet entitled, "Birth of Jesus", by Dr. Basharat Ahmad, 1930.
for "unfortunately the popular belief among the Musalmans also imitates the Christian
superstition that Jesus was born without the instrumentality of a human father". And he
rebukes such for their inconsistency, in that while holding to the view of a supernatural
birth they "refuse the conclusion", viz. that Jesus was divine.
ORTHODOX AND RATIONALIST IN CONFLICT
Since these contradictory views are held partly as a result of differing

interpretations of the relevant passages in the Qur’ān, it will be well, at this point, if we
briefly examine what is said there about the birth of Jesus.
There is a long passage, in a chapter named after her, about Mary and her Son, on
the basis of which Muslims hitherto have implicitly believed in His supernatural birth.
Part of the statement runs as follows:
"We sent our spirit (i.e. Gabriel) to her, and he took before her the form of a
perfect man. She said 'I flee for refuge from thee to the God of Mercy! If thou
fearest Him, begone from me'. He said, 'I am only a messenger from thy Lord, that I
may bestow on thee a holy son'. She said, 'How shall I have a son, when man hath
never touched me? and I am not unchaste'. He said: 'Even so shall it be. Thy Lord
hath said: 'Easy is this with Me; and We will make him a sign to mankind, and a
mercy from Us. For it is a thing decreed' ……Then she came with the babe to her
people, bearing him. They said, 'O Mary! now thou hast done a strange thing! O
sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste thy mother'.
And she made a sign to them, pointing towards the babe.1 It (from the cradle) said,
'Verily, I am the servant of God; He hath given me the Book, and He hath made me
a prophet'……(I am to be) 'duteous to her that bare me'……This
1
"The child came to her rescue. By a miracle he spoke, defended his mother, and preached—to an
unbelieving audience", Mr. Yusuf Ali, in his note (2482) on this passage.
is Jesus, the son of Mary; this is a statement of the truth concerning which they
doubt. It beseemeth not God to beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He decreeth a
thing He only saith to it, 'Be' and it is," 19: 16-41.
A similar statement about God's decree is made at another place,
"Verily, Jesus is as Adam in the sight of God" (literally: the similitude of

'Isā is as the similitude of Adam, i.e. neither of them had a human father). "He
created him of dust: He then said to him 'Be' and he was." 3: 52. Commenting on
this verse Mr. Yusuf Ali says, "as stated in verse 59 below1 Jesus was created by a
miracle, by God's word, 'Be' and he was".2
There is in the former passage such striking similarity to features in Luke's

narrative3; such care to clear Mary's character and to rid men's minds of the idea that God
begat Jesus, that the conclusion seems inescapable—Muhammad, while repudiating the
base insinuations of slanderous Jews regarding Mary's chastity, yet believed Jesus to have
been conceived by an act of the Divine Will. This, at any rate, has been the view of
Muslims through the centuries; and it would be easy to cite numerous statements from
modern writers in support of it. For instance, even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote,
"The Muslims have, in obedience to the Revelation of God granted to them

through their Holy Prophet, admitted the miraculous conception and the birth of
Jesus, and it forms a part of their belief."4
Mr. Yusuf Ali, in the most recent commentary in English, says,

1
Rodwell, verse 52.
2
Note 381.
3
Luke, 1: 26-38.
4
Unity versus Trinity, p. 38. cp. Proof of Prophet Mohammad, etc., p. 5—"Jesus Christ is begotten
without a father".
"Mary the mother of Jesus was unique, in that she gave birth to a son by
special miracle, without the intervention of the customary physical means."1
But now the Ahmadi author of the booklet referred to above, seeks to establish the
conclusion that the birth of Jesus took place according to the ordinary course of nature,
and would have his readers believe that he finds support for his contention in the
language of the Qur’ān as well as in the gospels. He argues that fatherhood is
indispensable in all creation—a law of nature and, being God's law, immutable, 4: 13; 76:
2. There can be no exception to the universal rule. Why, then, try to make an exception in
the case of Jesus? Again,
"If Jesus was really born in some superhuman way he must have been
superhuman in nature too. The whole point of the Quranic argument is that Jesus
was born in quite a human way and hence he could not but be human. The no-father
theory takes the whole bottom out of the argument and is therefore anti-Quranic.2
He denies that 3: 52 points to a supernatural birth of Jesus.

As for the narratives in Matthew and Luke, he says that no reliance can be placed
on these because they are acknowledged to be late additions and, as such, are
unauthentic.3 He then declares,
"The Christian doctrine as to the innmaculate conception of Jesus is based

on the well-known prophecy of Isaiah as to the advent of Immanuel"—Isaiah, 7: 14-
15, and on Matthew's "deliberate attempt to fit in this prophecy somehow" into his
"tell-tale description of Jesus' birth". Everybody knows, he says, that Matthew uses
the Greek word
1
Note 382 on 3: 37.
2
op. cit., p. 11.
3
On the contrary, the account does not come down to us separated by a long interval of years from the
rest of the story; and even radical critics admit that the contents of Luke, chh. I and 2, may have been in
circulation in the Jewish-Christian communities of that 1st century.
parthenos which is not a translation of the Hebrew ‘almah,' for that word means "a
young woman" (of marriageable age).
But the sufficient answer to this is that the Hebrew word does not exclude the idea of
virgin; and as for Matthew, he quotes Isaiah in order to repel the innuendoes against
Mary's honour.
It is an interesting fact that a highly educated Muslim prepared and published a
very convincing reply to the Ahmadi booklet.1 In this he confines himself, as a Muslim,
to the evidence of the Qur’ān for the virgin birth of Jesus, "which is accepted by Muslims
according to the statements of the Holy Qur’ān"; and declares, against the arguments of
the Ahmadi writer, that the Quranic statements "are too clear to be distorted to serve any
such purpose". He proceeds:
"That Jesus was born without father is accepted by all Muslims except the
Motazilites, or the so-called Rationalists who discredit everything which does not
appeal to their conscience or sentiment. The famous Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and
Sayyid Ameer Ali were the exponents of this school in modern times. The Mirzais
of Lahore have adopted the principles of the Motazilites for the sake of conveniently
reconciling science and religion." He blames them for rejecting what the founder of
their sect accepted, and quotes from the writings of the Mirza and present-day
Qadianis to prove that they "do not believe Joseph to be the father of Jesus, and that
Mary gave birth to Jesus without the agency of man".2
1
Birth of Jesus, by Maulana Ahmad, M.A., of Meerut College, Pubd., Delhi, 1933.
2
While it is true, as this writer says, that the Qadianis (or Mirzais, adherents of the original sect founded
by Mirza Ghulani Ahmad) do uphold the supernatural birth of Jesus, yet they use it as proof of his
inferiority. Thus, "The virgin birth……is an illustration of parthenogenesis which is normally seen in the
lower animals, as a result of some pathological stimulus……it is not a normal process of development, but
a secondary or degenerate reproduction; it does not belong
"It is clearly given in the Qur’ān, 4: 156 (Rodwell 155) that the Jews
accused Mary of fornication, and were cursed by God for that". He says, "this
insistence on the purity of Mary's character seems superfluous and irrelevant if there
was not occasion for doing so" He stresses God's words of reassurance and
explanation to Mary, "Even so", at 19: 21 and 3: 41, and finds confirmation in a
similar phrase used to Zacharias, 3: 35. The phrase, he says, explains and confirms
"the deviation of nature from its set course". Rebutting Dr. Basharat's suggestion
that Mary showed lack of faith, he says, "God gave a son to a virgin as He gave to a
barren woman. The birth of John lends support to the birth of Jesus". And against
Maulana Muhammad Ali's contention he says, "The throes of childbirth (19: 23)
cannot prove that Mary had conceived after being touched by a man. Jesus was after
all a human being. This verse is conclusive proof of the fatherless birth of Jesus.
Mary's desire, here expressed, to be "a thing forgotten" is significant. This desire
was quite according to human nature, because she had conceived without being
married and had withdrawn to a remote place out of shame. Then a voice called out
to her 'Grieve not!'."
"The above verses remove all the doubts about the virgin birth of Jesus. Dr.
Basharat Ahmad has made a muddle of the whole thing and rendered them
meaningless."
Reference has been made above to Maulana Muhammad Ali's comments on the
passage from Sura Maryam. This is what he actually says about Mary's pains.
"This shows that Mary gave birth to Jesus under the ordinary circumstances
which women experience in giving birth to children……The reference to the throes
of child-birth clearly shows that an ordinary human child was coming into the world
and thus it bespeaks a denial of his divinity." Again on 3: 52, he says that the only
meaning is that, as Adam, so was Jesus, "created from dust and then chosen or
purified
to the higher order of the physical law but to the lower. It does not exalt Christ, but lowers his dignity as a
normal man". M. Nawaz, M.B., B.S., in The Review of Religions, 1927.
by Allah……there is no reference to Jesus being brought into existence without the

agency of a male parent. The controversy is here carried on with the Christians, and
it is their false belief in the divinity of Jesus that is here condemned."1
These quotations from the published writings of the Ahmadis make it abundantly
clear that, in this matter, they are labouring under the misapprehension that Christians
find special proof for their belief in the divinity of Christ in the Gospel narratives of His
supernatural birth. But that is not so. On the contrary, neither the question of His
"Sonship", nor what is meant by His "sinlessness", nor yet His "Divinity", is bound up
with the question of His birth. And while all Christians believe in the Incarnation that
does not warrant us in saying that belief in the Virgin Birth is a necessary pre-requisite to
that belief. The late Bishop Gore, speaking of the faith of the early Christians, quite
rightly insisted that, "The Virgin Birth was certainly not part of the original Apostolic
message. It was not among the grounds on which original belief in Jesus was claimed".2
The Christian apologist's attitude to this subject, therefore, makes it necessary for
him to repudiate, as in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity, the contention of many
Muslims that we have here something that is of the essence of the Christian Gospel, and,
as such, vital for Christian faith. The fact is, that were the gospels to contain no reference
whatever to the manner of Jesus' birth, Christians would still maintain their belief in His
Deity, for it is on quite other grounds that they base their conviction.
1
Notes 1539 and 443.
2
A New Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, p. 31.
WHAT OF THE SILENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?
Objection has sometimes been raised against this doctrine of the Church on the
ground that no reference to the Virgin Birth is to be found in the rest of the New
Testament. Though this might at first appear to be a formidable difficulty, yet both the
scantiness of such reference as we have and also the remarkable silence elsewhere, have
their reasonable explanations.
From the fact that these accounts are found in Matthew and Luke we can safely
conclude that the doctrine was current in the Jewish-Christian Church in Palestine in the
latter half of the first century. By that time Jewish slanders were already in circulation.
The very basis of these was the ascertained fact that Jesus had not been born in normal
wedlock. The Church was therefore compelled to answer base imputations, and thus
arose the necessity for the account we find in Matthew.
Further, Joseph knew the facts, and knew too what the Law permitted,1
nevertheless he did not divorce Mary. That is something which goes to prove that he was
convinced of her innocence. Moreover, it also shows that though Joseph is spoken of in
the gospels as Jesus' father, yet Jesus was not his son. In accepting Mary as innocent,
Joseph accepted also her child, and this saved her from the cruelty of unjust disgrace. He
thus became the legal father of Mary's child, and is spoken of as such in the gospels. It is
possible that it was he who informed Matthew how matters stood. On the other hand, the
silence could be accounted for by Mary's natural hesitancy to disclose the fact to the
apostles until long after the death of Jesus.
In any case we can say without fear of contradiction, that had it been intended by
Him who overruled the sacred records
1
See Deuteronomy, 24; 1
that belief in the Virgin Birth should be vital to salvation, we should have had clear and
constant reference to it in the New Testament. As it is, we cannot imagine Jesus insisting
on an acceptance of these birth narratives "as a condition or preliminary of personal
salvation".1
Again, there is no clear indication from his writings that Paul was aware of the
virgin birth. But in his case we need to bear in mind that from a very early date he had
himself proclaimed Christ's Deity quite apart from any reference to His birth.2 And, as
has often been pointed out, in the circumstances in which he announced the Gospel to
converts from paganism, any account of a supernatural birth would, in all probability,
have left an entirely erroneous impression; apart from which he knew that it did not
belong to the essence of the Gospel message.
We may sum up the whole matter in the words of the late Bishop Gore: "If
therefore there was a divine providence presiding over the incidents of our Lord's
appearance in the world, certainly we must judge that it was God's intention that His first
apostles should come to believe in Him in virtue only of what they saw in Him or heard
from Him, and that their converts' faith should be based on the word of those whom He
specially trained and inspired to be His witnesses……Certainly the faith of the world in
Jesus as the Christ, and the Son of God, was to rest on nothing else than the personal
testimony of the ‘chosen witnesses', coupled with the witness of the Holy Scriptures".3
ARE THE NARRATIVES BORROWED?
It has been suggested by Muslims, following a lead from the West, that the idea of
birth from a virgin was borrowed
1
cp. H. R. Mackintosh, P.C., p. 531.
2
cp. Acts, 9: 20.
3
op. cit., pp. 315-6.
from pagan sources. Plausible as this may seem, there is no valid reason for accepting it,
and there is much to be said against it.
When a story of the abnormal occurs in pagan myths it is frequently elaborated
with indecent detail. They do not tell of virgin birth at all, but of gods possessed with
human passions.1 A very different tone pervades the whole of the New Testament, and
this makes it utterly unlikely that the authors of the Gospel narrative would have stooped
to filch material from such degrading stories to write up their account. Besides which,
scholars have failed to find any ethnic parallel to birth from a pure virgin, while so great
an authority as Harnack definitely ruled out the possibility. "The conjecture", he said,
"that the idea of a birth from a virgin is a heathen myth which was received by Christians
contradicts the entire earliest developments of Christian tradition".2 Nor can we believe
that the narratives of the birth are the creations of Jewish Christians, because the Jews
exalted marriage, not virginity.
On the other hand, one is struck by the exquisite reserve shown by both Matthew
and Luke in speaking of this event, lest what is said should be misconstrued. This
reticence, together with the freshness and purity of the narratives, is evidence in their
favour. There is an entire absence of morbid reflection and vulgar curiosity, such as mar
the pages of pagan myth, the apocryphal gospels, and the literature of Islam. If we would
see for ourselves what unrestrained human imagination can do we should read some of
these fabrications.
For instance, in the popular Qisasu’l-Anbiyā, "Stories of the Prophets", current
throughout the Muslim world, the compiler must needs explain what Gabriel did to Mary
after
1
cp. H. R. Mackintosh, P.C., 530.
2
Quoted by Bishop Gore, op. cit., p. 319.
informing her of the Divine message, "Easy is this with me", 19: 21. We are told that "he
breathed in the opening of her chemise; and she had taken it off; and when he departed
from her Mary put it on, and so she conceived Jesus, on whom be peace". There follows
at this point an indecent explanation of the mode of conception'.1
Consider next the following extracts from one of the apocryphal gospels.
"And Annas the scribe turned him about and saw Mary great with child.
And he went hastily to the priest and said unto him: 'Joseph, to whom thou bearest
witness (that he is righteous) hath sinned grievously'. And the priest said, 'Wherein'?
And he said, 'The virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, he hath
defiled her and married her by stealth, and hath not declared it to the children of
Israel'. And the priest answered and said: 'Hath Joseph done this?' And Annas the
scribe said: 'Send officers and thou shalt find the virgin great with child'. And the
officers went and found as he had said, and they brought her together with Joseph
unto the place of judgment. And the priest said, 'Mary, wherefore hast thou done
this, and wherefore hast thou humbled thy soul and forgotten the Lord thy God, thou
that wast nurtured in the Holy of Holies and didst receive food at the hand of an
angel and didst hear the hymns and didst dance before the Lord, wherefore hast thou
done this?'
"But she wept bitterly, saying: 'As the Lord my God liveth I am pure before
Him and I know not a man'. And the priest said unto Joseph: 'Wherefore hast thou
done this?' And Joseph said: 'As the Lord my God liveth I am pure concerning her'.
And the priest said: 'Bear no false witness, but speak the truth: thou hast married her
by stealth and hast not declared it unto the children of Israel, and hast not bowed
thine head under the Mighty Hand that thy seed should be blessed'. And Joseph held
his peace.
"And the priest said: 'Restore the virgin whom thou didst receive out of the
temple of the Lord'. And Joseph was
1
cp. S. M. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 62, note.
full of weeping. And the priest said: 'I will give you to drink of the water of
conviction of the Lord, and it will make manifest your sin before your eyes'. And the
priest took thereof and made Jesus drink and sent him into the hill-country. And he
returned whole. He made Mary also drink and sent her into the hill-country. And she
returned whole. And all the people marvelled, because sin appeared not in them.
And the priest said: 'If the Lord God hath not made your sin manifest, neither do I
condemn you'. And he let them go. And Joseph took Mary and departed unto his
house rejoicing, and glorifying the God of Israel."1
It is plain for all to see that these narratives have been soiled and debased by the
coarse touch of a type of writer very different from those who gave us the narratives in
Matthew and Luke. "The one account is the reverent description of fact, the others the
unclean imagination of fiction". The pity of it is, as scholars unanimously agree, that
details for the story in the Qur’ān have been most obviously drawn from these very
apocryphal gospels, which the Christian Church has never recognized.2 It is sheer
presumption, therefore, for Muslims to claim that it has been the Qur’ān and Islam that
have saved the names of Mary and Joseph from slander and calumny.3 Joseph's action
alone, as recorded in Matthew, was sufficient vindication.
1
cp. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 44-45; also The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, in
Bibles of other Nations, pp. 97-109.
2
cp. 19: 16-41.
3
cp. "With one word the Qur’ān removes all slur that attaches to the birth of Jesus Christ……it calls
him 'a soul from God'; otherwise he would have been known as a bastard": Khwaja Kamal-ud-din, Muslim
India, I, iii, p. 89. See also Maulana Muhammad Ali's note 1546, on 19: 37. The obvious rejoinder to all
such remarks is that there is, in the gospels, no suggestion of any slur on the names of Jesus and His
mother. These Muslim writers claim too much, for, as one of themselves has pointed out, it was only
among hostile Jews that any calumny existed.
Finally, what needs to be stressed—for it receives great prominence, alike in the

Gospel account as in the Qur’ān—is not the absence of a father (that is a negative
argument), but the overshadowing of God's Holy Spirit, something positive. It is this that
makes it possible for us to assert that with Jesus, and through Jesus, there has entered into
the current of human life a new stream, a pure power, which has not been derived from
humanity. "It is the creative inflow of the Unseen……a new humanity, unique in
perfectness of initial constitution, but grafted by God's creative act into the older stem".1
This fact is an effective reply to the blasphemous remark that the tainted blood of His
ancestors flowed in Jesus' veins. No! "the succession of sin in a direct line was made to
cease in Him ... If He took heredity, it is true also that He gives us His".2 As the Fourth
Gospel joyfully declares, Grace and Truth have come to us "by Jesus Christ".3
And when all is said, we need to remind ourselves that the case we are
considering cannot be treated as that of an ordinary man. The narrative of the life of Jesus
in the gospels itself prevents us from doing that. We are dealing with the CENTRAL
FIGURE in history, with One whose earthly career closed with the Resurrection. Of Him
it is not unreasonable to hold that a supernatural entry provides but a fitting prelude to the
life He lived. Indeed, apart from Him, the idea of a supernatural conception is not even
plausible.4
1
2
Rendell Harris, Union with God, chap. on "Grace and Heredity", p. 166.
3
John, 1: 17.
4
H. R. Mackintosh, op. cit., p. 527.
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Orr, J., The Virgin Birth of Christ.

Mackintosh, H. R., The Person of Christ, Appendix.
Zwemer, S. M., The Moslem Christ, Oliphants, 1912.
Rendell Harris, Union with God, Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.
James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1926.
Stewart, J. S., A Man in Christ, Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.
Muhammad Ali, Muhammad and Christ, Lahore, 1921.
Kamaluddin, The Sources of Christianity, Woking, 1925.
Basharat Ahmad, Birth of Jesus, Lahore, 1929.
Maulana Ahmad, Birth of Jesus, Delhi, 1933.
Matthews, Capt., Mishkātu’l Masābih, Eng. trans. Calcutta, 1809-10.
Goldsack, W., Selections from Muhammadan Traditions, C.L.S., 1923.
[Blank Page]
CHAPTER
VIII
CHRIST'S MIRACLES
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"Miracles are the only evidence on which the deity of Jesus is supported—but to
speak of his miracles as proof of his divinity is to produce one assertion in support of
another" (pp. 177f).
"Had any such occurrence (i.e. raising the dead) actually taken place……the Jews
would have followed Jesus to death instead of planning his death" (pp. 176f).
"The miracles of Jesus are simply variations, in many cases much inferior, of the
miracles recorded in the books of the prophets, whom no man ever dreamt of deifying."
"Jesus' life is full of things which no man can do, miracles of healing, stilling the
storm, and so on" (p. 185).
"The gospels are abundant with Jesus' signs. But from certain verses it is evident
that Jesus could not show a sign, e.g. Mark 8:12 contains a plain denial of signs" (p. 179).
"The wonderful works of Jesus were invented afterwards, because Mark 8: 12
contains a plain denial of signs" (pp. 174, 176, 182).
"You say Jesus never used his miraculous powers for himself, but Lk. 4: 30 and
John 8:59 mention that he did" (p. 181).
"If Jesus were God, he could have known before that the fig-tree was fruitless and
should not have gone to it" (p. 181).
"The alleged miracles of Jesus are pure romance, so long as they are
unaccompanied with solid proof" (pp. 182-5).
CHAPTER VIII
CHRIST'S MIRACLES
The wonderful works of Jesus have gained such a place of fame in Muslim lands
that to this day a tabīb, or hakīm, if asked why he does not cure some desperately sick
person, is likely to reply "Am I ‘Isā, that I can bring the dead to life?" The present writer
cherishes a stanza in Urdu, the tribute of a devout Musalman to the miracle-working
Christ, which may be construed as follows:
"The dead in a moment rose at the Name of Jesus,

Lepers and the blind were healed at His command.
O Aziz! My desire and hope of salvation is
Always in Jesus Christ, Highly Exalted!"
Yet attempts are now being made to discredit even these. For instance, the
Ahmadi writer does so in the book from which we have quoted, with the object of
denying Christ's divinity and so His superiority to Muhammad. He says there, and with
some truth if we have regard to the views of earlier apologist, "in the miracles wrought by
Christ, as in nothing else, is thought to lie the argument for his divinity". He reveals, all
too clearly, his eagerness to establish his thesis when he goes on to say, "the central fact
in the Christian religion is a miracle (viz.: the resurrection); if then Jesus did not rise from
the dead the Christian faith and the preaching of Christianity is in vain".1
In view of such an attitude on the part of the rationalist group it becomes
necessary to indicate what, in reality, is the ground for continued belief in the miracles of
Christ, and to
1
Muhammad and Christ, p. 17.
point out the error that lies both in the traditional Christian point of view regarding them,
and in Maulana Muhammad Ali's treatment of the whole subject.
When the latter says, "The miraculous in a prophet's life is needed to assure the
people of the truth of his message", he not only endorses, though perhaps unwittingly,
part of the traditional view about miracles, but admits, in effect, that miracles actually
took place. This is implied, also, in his dictum that "the best evidence of miracles consists
in the effect they produce"; though he seems to make this a criterion merely to show that
those attributed to Christ lack such support. He asks what "success" Jesus obtained
through these works of his, and reasons as follows to show that there was very little.
"Many" and "all" are said in different places in the gospels to have been "healed"
by Christ, therefore "many" and "all"—in fact, multitudes—should have "believed" on
him. Yet we know that, in spite of these reported miracles, Christ's disciples were both
few and poor in number, quite the reverse of what we should have expected had the
miracles really taken place. All of which, he argues, proves that the "stories" were
invented afterwards, in order "to compensate for the apparent failure" of Christ's
mission.1
Then, flying in the face of the plain language of the gospels and with strange
inconsistency, he comes to the conclusion that "the whole fault lies with Jesus' too free
use of symbolical language". In support of this he actually cites the answer of Jesus to the
Baptist in prison,2 at which place, he says, the word poor is used symbolically; "for he
(Christ) was not actually preaching the gospel only to the poor"……"but his words being
misunderstood, it was thought necessary
1
cp. also his note 428 on 3: 43, a verse quoted on the next page.
2
cp. Mt. 11: 2-6.
CHRIST'S MIRACLES 175
to add to the story of his life these stories of the raising of the dead to life".1
THE TESTIMONY OF THE QUR’ĀN
But what, then, of the evidence of the Qur’ān, which Muslims in general most
firmly believe and upon which is based Jesus' reputation for being a great physician?
Here are the words:
"Now have I come to you with a sign from your Lord: out of clay will I
make for you, as it were, the figure of a bird; and I will breathe into it and it shall
become by God's leave, a bird. And I will heal the blind and the leper; and by God's
leave will I quicken the dead and I will tell you what ye eat, and what ye store up in
your houses. Truly, in this will be a sign to you, if ye are believers." 3: 43.
Is the Qur’ān also to be charged with similar "necessary addition" in regard to the
reputation of Jesus? Realizing the dilemma this Ahmadi author observes that symbolical
language is used in the Qur’ān of Muhammad also; and he cites "O ye faithful! make
answer to the appeal of God and His apostle when he calleth you to that which giveth you
life", 8: 24. And so, according to the Qur’ān, not Jesus only but Muhammad as well is
said to "raise the dead". The Qur’ān, the writer explains, means here the "spiritually
dead", for Muhammad could only have given life to such; therefore the Qur’ān must not
be forced to yield a meaning for Jesus that it cannot have for Muhammad. Again he says,
"To understand the full significance of this passage it is necessary to bear in

mind that the chief characteristic of Jesus' speeches is that he spoke in parables and
preferred to clothe his ideas in allegorical language"…….This statement about clay
birds "is perfectly intelligible if taken as a parable
1
op. cit., p. 29.
……a prophet's dignity is much above such actions as the making of toy birds"
……The Qur’ān "again and again speaks of the Divine Being as the Creator of
everything, so that there is nothing of which anyone else may be said to be a
creator."1
Mr. Yusuf Ali's comment (note 390) on this passage is of another kind.
"This miracle of the clay birds is found in some of the apocryphal gospels;
those of curing the blind and the lepers and raising the dead are in the canonical
gospels. The original Gospel was not the various stories written afterwards by
disciples, but the real Message taught direct by Jesus".
He adduces no proof for his assertion that they were written afterwards. As a
matter of fact our oldest extant documents contain them. But we quite agree with
Muhammad Ali's statement that the making of clay birds is not in keeping with the
dignity of Jesus. It is no wonder that the Church rejected the apocryphal source from
which the Quranic story is drawn.
But there need be no confusion in the mind of the unprejudiced reader of the
gospels. There, too, we can find passage after passage to parallel the Ahmadi writer's
quotation from the Qur’ān, by way of illustrating Jesus' use of strictly symbolical
language: e.g. "The words I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life".2
On the other hand, one must confess astonishment at such a misreading of the
gospels and at the unreasonable conclusion which Muhammad Ali draws from the actual
record of these miracles. Take one aspect on which he lays particular stress—the question
of the number of Jesus' followers. How is it that he failed to come to quite another
conclusion? He must have known, for instance, that on the occasion when ten lepers were
cleansed Jesus Himself expressed pained
1
note 428 on 3: 48.
2
John, 6: 63.
surprise that only one of them returned to praise God, "Were there none found to give
glory to God, save this stranger, a Samaritan?"1 What, again, would have been the sense
of Jesus' reply to the anxious question of the imprisoned Baptist if, in reality, He had not
actually healed the blind, made the lame to walk, cleansed the leper, made the deaf hear,
and raised the dead? If, in fact, John's own disciples had not, "at that moment", witnessed
with their own eyes such mighty works?2
USE OF THE MIRACLES BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Now, part of our difficulty in this matter of the miracles of Jesus arises from the
fact that for a long time in the past they were assigned by Christians to the sphere of
apologetics, and have been regarded as evidential portents—useful as proofs.
Christianity must be in a bad way if and when it seeks to rest its case, in the main,
on miracles. That this has been done cannot be denied. It is recorded, for instance, that an
aged monk who met Ibn Tūlūn in Egypt, in 873 A.D. unashamedly confessed that
Christianity was incapable of intellectual proof! He could only suppose that its
acceptance by intelligent people was to be accounted for by miracles which overwhelm
the intellect.3
But the Christian point of view has entirely changed in recent times. We are no
longer required to defend Christianity, as such, by seeking the support of Christ's
miracles; nor do we any longer depend on them for proof of His divinity, for "Deity is not
necessarily seen in the marvellous deed".4 Most modern religious thinkers base the
1
Luke, 17: 11-19.
2
Mt. 11: 4-6; compare Luke, 7: 8-23 (Moffatt's translation).
3
3 cp. L. E. Browne, op. cit., p. 81.
4
cp. Weatherhead, op. cit., pp. 26, 178.
case for Christianity on the spiritual personality of Jesus. What was His outlook with
regard to the people of whom it is recorded that He healed them? Surely He gloried in the
great works of God that were being wrought in them through Him. We can be certain that
He must have felt towards physical and mental disease much as any high-souled
physician or surgeon feels about it to-day, viz.: it is something that should not be,
something one should strive to dispel.1 And the Church of the earliest days maintained a
similar attitude. Miracles were then looked upon as manifestations of the presence of the
Holy Spirit and proof that God's power was at work in the Church.
It was in mediaeval times that that early point of view was lost sight of, for, since
miracles of a kind had come to be associated with saints and shrines, it became the vogue
among Christians to read back into the narrative of Christ's miracles something that was
not historically there. Theologians of the time made the miracles of the gospels to be, not
so much evidence of God's love and compassion, as proofs of His favour. They used
them to accredit Christ's mission and to confirm the Church's belief in His divinity. It was
an essentially weak position, and the Church felt it to be so when faced with the
scepticism that came in with the dawn of rationalism in the 18th century. In her defence
of them she found the miracles to be a burden for Christian faith, instead of its glory.
With the development of science and the general application to phenomena of the
scientific principle, the Church's weak apology was brushed aside on the ground that,
since Nature was a uniformly closed system, miracles simply could not
1
cp. D. S. Cairns, The Faith that Rebels, a reconsideration of the miracles of Christ, p. 77; a valuable
study to which the present writer is repeatedly indebted in this chapter.
happen. Rationalists declared that the Gospel miracles were an anomaly and that the
reports of them must be looked upon as unhistorical. Some, by an unfair use of recorded
instances of Christ's refusal to grant signs on request, argued that, in reality, He did not
work any miracle at all.1
RECENT CHANGED OUTLOOK
But once again the position has been modified. Modernists themselves now
believe in God's personal intervention in the soul of man. That is to say, they admit that
spiritual miracles, "conversions", are not only possible but actually occur. Nor can it be
denied that during the past few years the results attending the practice of faith-healing
and psycho-therapy, have brought the bulk of the miracles of Christ within the range of
human experience. We are living in a day when the ideal power of mind over body is
being widely recognized as an irrefutable fact. So notable a scientist as Sir Oliver Lodge
has stated that "We need not urge a priori objections to miracles on scientific grounds.
They need be no more impossible, no more lawless, than the interference of a human
being would seem to a colony of ants or bees."
It thus comes about that the modernist is willing to accept most, if not all, of the
healing miracles of Christ—though he may not call them "miracles"—yet he is only
prepared to go to the limits of present-day experience. As for the "nature miracles", they
must be ruled out because he finds no analogies to them. But consider what a significant
advance this is on the position of sceptics of the last century, men
1
cp. Mk. 6: 5-6; 8: 12. Matthew Arnold may be taken as representative of this type of scepticism. In the
preface to Literature and Dogma he says, "Our popular religion at present conceives of the birth, ministry
and death of Christ as altogether steeped in prodigy, brimful of miracles, and miracles do not happen".
like Strauss and Renan, who viewed almost all of the wonderful works of Christ as purely
legendary.
But the matter cannot be left there. Is the modernist really consistent when he
admits the influence of mind over body and yet clings to the old view that nature is a
closed system? Does he not tend to make "whatever God there is a prisoner in the laws of
His own world, powerless to assist His children?" Surely the truth is to be sought
elsewhere. For if the system of physical nature can be deflected by the mind of man—as
it is—what is to prevent its being influenced by the Mind and Will of the Creator
Himself?
When we put the question in this form we see that what is really at stake in this
controversy about miracles, is the Christian view of God and the World. We humans
make our impact felt upon Nature in many ways—some of our modern achievements in
this respect would have staggered our grandparents1—why then, we ask, may not God,
this Living Will, for beneficent ends, freely manipulate Nature, which, after all, is but the
plastic expression of His own Will?
Nature, like the body, has its origin equally in God, and it is God who heals the
body, as it is God who stills the storm. Jesus was but speaking and acting in the name of
such a God. "Alike in His words and in the whole mould and fashion of His character, He
implies that God is always nearer, mightier, more loving, and more free to help each of us
than any of us ever realises." The writer of those words urges that the difficulty felt by
the modern mind about the nature miracles of Christ appears less when we realize that
they are wrought through the Divine Mind by prayer. When we pray "for those in peril on
the sea" in a terrible storm, we are not merely asking that they should be kept calm and
1
A popular writer on physics actually uses the word miracle for the talking film and radio receiver.
morally intact, but positively that they may be saved from accident and destruction—and
that implies a "nature miracle". And these nature miracles, the supreme instance of which
is Christ's Resurrection, are required to make manifest "God's victory over all the mortal
and tragic powers of the world".1
THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS
And there is evidence enough in the Gospel account of the miracles of Jesus to
render the old view of them altogether untenable.
They were never displays of power—"prodigies". His works of healing, for
instance, are evidence of His deep compassion. Whenever the faith of people permitted it
He healed the sick and diseased, in body and mind, because He could not help doing so.
Some of His "signs" may have had secondary significance as witnessing to His claims,
e.g. to the office of Messiah.2 Others, like the withering of the fig tree were symbols of
great spiritual realities. This last was an acted parable of judgment on Jerusalem. The
spiritual life of God's chosen people, the Jews, was withering away, because they failed
to bring forth fruit for God, though professing to be religious.
Nor did Christ ever work a miracle for private ends3; or to convince sceptics.4 As
Dr. Cairns has well said: "Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned by the child-like heart,
not forced home upon dazzled senses and stunned minds by the blows of supernatural
power".5
Further, while Jesus estimated very highly the evidential value of His miracles for
those who had in them the rudiments
1
D. S. Cairns, op. cit., p. 167ff.
2
cp. Hoskyns and Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament, p. 169.
3
cp. Mt. 4: 1-11.
4
Mk. 8: 11-12; Mt. 16: 1-4; Lk. 23: 8-10.
5
op. cit., pp. 28-29.
of faith, He was, nevertheless, well aware that where there was no faith, miracles had no
educative value—they rather created excitement and eagerness for merely physical
benefit which distracted men's attention from His teaching. Consider in this connection
the significance of the statement that Jesus could read the minds of men.1 He had no faith
in that kind of faith where men "believed" only as far as they could "see"; and He
repeatedly "refused" to satisfy curiosity by working "signs".2
Nor should we lose sight of the repeated stress which He laid upon both faith and
prayer. He often stated that there was a vital relation between His mighty works and faith,
and demonstrated that believing prayer does alter things.3
When we turn to consider the actual evidence afforded by the records for these
miracles we find that it is very striking.
In the first place, and as against the suggestion that the accounts are later
inventions, we observe an intimate connection in the narratives between the miraculous
and the non-miraculous. The one element cannot be cut out without doing violence to the
whole.4 Consider, for instance, the following from amongst similar sayings of Jesus; they
presuppose a miracle:
Mk. 2: 17. "They that are whole have no need of a physician……"

Mk. 3: 22-30. "How can Satan cast out Satan?”
Mk. 6: 4. "What mean such mighty works?......"
"A prophet is not without honour, save etc……"
Mk. 9: 29. "This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer……"
Mt. 8: 10-12. "Verily I have not found so great faith……”
Jo. 11: 25. "I am the Resurrection and the Life……”
1
John, 2: 23-24.
2
cp. A. G. Hogg, Christ’s Message of the Kingdom, pp. 59-60.
3
e.g. Mk. 9: 23; 10: 27.
4
cp. Hoskyns and Davey, op. cit., pp. 169-170 and 177.
Then, too, these narratives bear the stamp of sobriety and dignity, and in this
particular they reflect the bearing of the One who performs the miracles. Here again one
is struck with the contrast offered by apocryphal accounts. Whereas in the canonical
gospels Jesus comes before us as the Compassionate One, quick to meet human need and
relieve human suffering, in the apocryphal narratives He is portrayed as both grotesque
and repulsive.
It is important that we should have before us some extracts from these apocryphal
gospels, so that the contrast may be established. Of special interest is the story in them
about the "clay birds", to which the account in the Qur’ān is unquestionably indebted:
"The little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of
a brook, and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools. And
having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath
when he did these things. And there were many other little children playing with
him. And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day,
departed straightway and told his father Joseph: ‘Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he
hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day'.
And Joseph came to the place and saw, and cried out to him saying: 'Wherefore
doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped
his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: 'Go'! and the
sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. And when the Jews saw it they
were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus
do. But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph: and he took a
branch of willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. And
when Jesus saw what was done he was wroth, and said unto him: 'O evil, ungodly,
and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also
thou shalt be like a withered tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit'.
And straightway the lad withered up
wholly, but Jesus departed and went into Joseph's house. But the parents of him that
was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and
accused him, 'for that thou hast such a child that doeth such deeds'."
“After that again he (Jesus) went through the village, and a child ran and
dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: 'Thou shalt
not finish thy course', and immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they
saw what was done said: ‘Whence was this young child born, for that every word of
his is an accomplished work?' And the parents of him that was dead came unto
Joseph and blamed him, saying, 'Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us
in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our
children'. And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying:
‘Wherefore dost thou do such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us?'
But Jesus said: ‘I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I
will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment'. And straightway they that
accused him were smitten with blindness. And they that saw it were sore afraid and
perplexed and said concerning him that every word which he spake, whether it was
good or bad, was a deed and became a marvel."
"Now after certain days Jesus was playing in the upper story of a certain
house, and one of the young children that played with him fell down from the house
and died. And the other children when they saw it fled, and Jesus remained alone.
And the parents of him that was dead came and accused him that he had cast him
down. And Jesus said: 'I did not cast him down', but they reviled him still. Then
Jesus leaped down from the roof and stood by the body of the child and cried with a
loud voice and said: 'Zeno! arise and tell me, did I cast thee down'? And straightway
he arose and said: ‘Nay, Lord, thou didst not cast me down, but didst raise me up'.
And when they saw it they were all amazed: and the parents of the child glorified
God for the sign which had come to pass, and worshipped Jesus."
"And Jesus said unto his teacher: 'If thou be indeed a teacher, and if thou
knowest letters well, tell me the power of Alpha, and then I will tell thee the power
of Beta. And the
teacher was provoked and smote him on the head. And the young child was hurt and
cursed him, and straightway he fell to the ground on his face. And the child returned
into the house of Joseph: and Joseph was grieved and commanded the mother
saying: 'Let him not forth without the door, for all they die that provoke him to
wrath'."1
If in reality the miracles of the gospels did not occur, how are we to account for
the absence in those records of extravagances such as these? Had the narrators no facts to
go upon they would most assuredly have blundered in similar fashion. The romances of
the nations are full of just such unrestrained writings as these apocryphal legends.
Nor can we account for the narratives by assuming that they owe their origin to
the credulity of the people. The records point the other way, e.g. "We never saw it in this
fashion"; "Since the world began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of a
man born blind"; "When the multitudes saw it (the healing of the palsied) they were
afraid, and glorified God who had given such power unto men".2 To be sure, there was
"wonder-working" akin to magic, but the more honest detected the difference and knew
how to explain it.
The very enemies of Jesus could not deny that He worked miracles, but in their
rage they invented the wildest reason by way of explaining them—"He hath a devil".3
However, the credibility of the Gospel miracles does not rest primarily, or only,
on documentary evidence, necessary though that is; but on the Personality of Jesus Christ
Himself. Being what He is, He makes it easier for us to credit them. We see Him to be
transparently good, sinless; and that is a greater miracle than any of the others. Indeed,
He was so
1
From "The Gospel of Thomas"; cp. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 49-53.
2
Mk. 2: 12; Mt. 9: 33; Jo. 9: 32; Mt. 9: 8.
3
Mt. 12: 34; Mk. 3: 22; Lk. 11: 15; Jo. 10: 19-21.
good that the requisite power could be entrusted to Him to be used with economy,
without the fear of that kind of misuse almost inevitable in the case of those less good.
We have convincing proof of how He regarded the need for restraint, in the story of the
temptations in the wilderness.
Finally, His place in history is unique—a new era dates from Him. Should it be
thought strange, then, if such unique things happened in His day? In any case it is to
unique facts that the records bear witness—not evil and disease alone, but famine, storm
and death itself go down before this "Prince of Life".
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Mozley, J. B., Eight Lectures on Miracles, Rivingtons, 1878.

Bruce, A. B., The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, Hodder & Stoughton, 1886.
Orr, J., The Christian View of God and the World, Edinburgh, 1902.
Cairns, D. S., The Faith that Rebels, S.C.M. Press, 1930.
Hoskyns & Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament, Faber, 1931.
James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament, 1926.
Hogg, A. G., Redemption from this World, T. & T. Clark, 1924.
CHAPTER
IX
THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"Jesus received the baptism of repentance at the hands of John, which involved a
confession of sins, and thus set a seal on his own sinfulness" (pp. 194-5).
"Baptism is the symbol of sins having been washed away. Jesus was
baptised……this shows that before his baptism he was not perfectly righteous; and that's
why after the baptism he saw the spirit of God coming upon him" (pp. 194-5).
"Suggestions were made to Jesus by the Devil and this is inconsistent with the
theory of his absolute sinlessness" (pp. 195-6).
"In the life of Jesus there is the confession of sin, repentance like that of sinners,
and deeds similar to those of the guilty” (pp. 198-9).
“Jesus got himself anointed by a harlot with ointment which was part of her
earnings of adultery, and allowed her to take undue liberty with him."
"His descent into hell, the abode of the wicked, is also recognized by the
Christians, than which no plainer proof is needed of the guiltiness of Jesus" (Qadiani).
"Jesus uttered words of unbelief in God, saying: 'My God, My God, Why hast
thou forsaken me'"? (p. 146).
"Jesus' refusal to be called ‘good' meant nothing but that he deemed himself to be
sinful" (p. 197).
"If Jesus was God, or the Son of God, he would not have denied to be called a
good master."
Jesus had enemies who sent him to the cross and finished with him, thus
depriving him of the opportunity to show in practice—what he preached—his undoubted
love for fellowman."
"We believe that Providence protected him (Jesus) from evil" (Qadiani).
"We Muslims yield to no Christian in our love of Jesus. He is as much ours and as
dear to us as to Christians" (The Light).
CHAPTER IX
THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST
It is universally held among Muslims that all prophets, as a class, were sinless;
and sometimes there is quoted in support of such a notion the Quranic passage:
"No apostle have we sent before thee (Muhammad) to whom we did not
reveal that ‘Verily there is no God beside Me; therefore worship Me'……..They
speak not till He hath spoken; and they do His bidding", 21: 25, 27. Commenting on
the latter verse a modern exponent of this view says: "This verse gives us a
conclusive testimony to the sinlessness of prophets. When they speak they do not
precede Allah in speech, i.e. they speak according to what He has taught them, not
speaking of their own accord. And when they act, they act according to His
commandment. Thus both their speech and their actions are in accordance with
Divine will, and therefore it cannot be said that they commit sin."1
Occasionally it is stated by Christian writers that Jesus Christ is the one sinless
prophet in Islam, but that must not be taken to represent the Muslim view; for whatever
the Qur’ān may say about Him, it nowhere states, in so many words, that He, or any
prophet for that matter, was ‘sinless'.
'ISĀ DECLARED TO BE PURE FROM SIN
Nevertheless, while by inference from the Qur’ān itself other prophets have
sinned yet there is not a hint there, or
1
Maulana Muhammad Ali, in loc. cit., note 1624. cp. however, very similar wording at 75: 16-19 which
suggests another and different interpretation, as has indeed been endorsed by this same expositor; see p. 39.
anywhere else in Islamic literature, of sin in Jesus. On the contrary, definite support for
the common belief of the masses that He was without sin is to be found in a well-known
tradition, attested by both Bukhārī and Muslim, which runs as follows:
"The Prophet said, ‘There is no son of Adam born, except Mary and her Son, but
Satan touches him when he is born and he cries out from the touch of Satan'." This
tradition is quoted by Baidhāwī in his comment on the verse, "I have named her Mary, and
I take refuge with thee for her and for her offspring, from Satan the stoned", 3: 31.
A variant form of the tradition is as follows:—
"The apostle of God said, 'Every child of Adam is at its birth stuck in the side by
the devil's fingers, except Jesus, son of Mary. The devil went to stick his fingers into his
side, but stuck them in the membranes enveloping the foetus'."1
And the Qur’ān itself makes Gabriel say to Mary that she is to have "a holy son",
ghulāman zakiyyan, 19: 19; which Baidhāwī interprets to mean pure from sin, and active
in goodness.
Yet now, in that spirit of malice to which reference was made in the last chapter,
the Ahmadis are maintaining that Jesus was far from blameless in character. The lead in
this matter was given by the founder of the sect, who in face of the angry protests of the
orthodox, defended himself by declaring that he was not attacking the ‘Isā of the Qur’ān,
but the Jesus of the gospels—an excuse that deceived nobody. He sought to establish his
contention on the Gospel narratives themselves. How he wrested the meaning of passages
in his determination to degrade Jesus, will be realized by a perusal of a list of his
charges.2
1
Mishkātu’l-Masābih, Book I, chap. 3, pt. 1, and Book XXIV, chap. 1, pt. 1, (trans. Matthews).
2
See Appendix C, p. 220.
THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST 191
But Maulana Md. Ali, formerly the Mirza's disciple, bases his repudiation of the
sinlessness of Christ on other grounds. He maintains, and quite rightly, that mere
"sinlessness" is no proof of greatness. Rather, greatness depends upon the amount of
good done to one's fellowmen. Judged by this standard, he asserts that Muhammad is
easily the greatest benefactor of humanity; and, in reference to the call to the prophetic
office, says: "He did not stand in need of being baptized by somebody as Jesus did".1
One finds it difficult to understand how these people still maintain that they
reverence the name of Christ, when they go out of their way to make the Gospel narrative
yield the meaning that Jesus was guilty of various moral offences.2 After all, the only
ground on which anyone, be he Christian or Muslim, can base the claim that Jesus was
without sin is the account that we have of Him in the gospels, for the reason that they are
the only source for our knowledge of Him.
The author of the book just quoted singles out for criticism another Christian
doctrine which has its bearing on the subject before us. "The fundamental difference
between Christianity and Islam is that the former teaches that every human child is born
sinful, while the latter teaches that every human child is born sinless……According to
the former……sin is inherent in human nature and man therefore can only be saved by
the redemption of the Son of God. This view is abhorrent……That man is born sinful, or
that sin is inherent in human nature, is to take the lowest possible
1
Muhammad and Christ, pp. 52, 117.
2
e.g. What value is to be attached to this assertion: "No Musalman can for a moment think of reviling
Jesus. The moment he does so, nay, the moment he ceases to revere him as a chosen messenger of God, he
ceases to be a Muslim", The Light, 16 Septem., 1933.
view of human nature".1 This dogma of Original Sin, and belief in it, he says, "forms the
foundation of the Christian religion".2
AHMADIS IMPUTE SIN TO JESUS
As the Ahmadis make much capital out of the doctrine of Original Sin and seek,
through their interpretation of it, to involve Jesus Christ in the general sinfulness of the
race, we are obliged to examine rather more closely what exactly we do mean when we
ascribe to Him sinlessness. It has frequently been remarked that it is unfortunate that so
much stress has been laid by Christian writers on this word in regard to Christ, because,
at best, it is negative; and it is impossible to prove a negative. Besides, the term suggests
the entirely erroneous notion that the highest achievement in the realm of ethics is "to do
no harm".3 On the contrary, what we believe concerning the character of Christ is some-
thing positive. What we extol in Him is "the full and positive response of His whole
being to God, whom He knew as Father"; we have in mind "His active, unstinted,
triumphant love and loyalty toward God and man, as shown in His life and supremely in
His death".4
It is not improbable that this phrase owed its origin to the concern of theologians
to maintain that Christ, in effecting a substitutionary atonement for sinners, was free from
the very liability to sin; in other words, that He was superna-
1
Op. cit., p. 48.
2
It would seem that Muslim writers fail to distinguish between original sin and original guilt—the latter
is not held by Christians.
3
Cp. Streeter, Reality, pp. 189-193; also Matthews, God in Christian Thought and Experience, pp. 51-
53.
4
Micklem, in Mysterium Christi, p. 155. cp. Robertson Nicol, The Church’s One Foundation, pp. 106
ff.
turally sinless.1 Such exponents thought to find the assurance of that immunity in the fact
that Jesus was born of a pure virgin. But there is surely a very real confusion here
between two different things, viz.: a tendency or liability to sin, and actual sin. One
cannot inherit an act, nor can one be held guilty for what one has not done. That men are
born into this world with a tendency to sin, or more precisely, with a nature readily
susceptible to evil temptation, is quite a different matter.
There seems, then, no a priori necessity, nor yet any reason in the Gospel records
for claiming that Jesus was supernaturally immune from the approach of evil; i.e. from
temptation, as such. Certainly birth from one parent does not give that immunity. For
without irreverence we may say that, if God had so chosen, He could have become
incarnate in the son of two parents, through the normal processes of generation. The
absence of a husband would not have rendered Mary "sinless".
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS?
It is far more satisfactory, however, to approach this question of the moral

character of Jesus Christ with the mind freed from theological dogma and presupposition.
When we turn to the synoptic gospels—for certain reasons the case is different in
the Fourth Gospel—we find no doctrine or dogma about His character. This of course is
because Matthew, Mark and Luke are concerned with history, not theology. These writers
tell their story so vividly that we feel it is drawn from life; it rings true. Their Jesus is not
weak nor sentimental, but a man—resolute, bold, determined, keen in debate, terrible in
wrath, denouncing hypocrites, and yet there is in Him no sin.
1
There was the influence also of the Jewish idea that the lamb for sacrifice must be "without blemish".
Nevertheless, there are certain incidents in these narratives which, while not
attributing sinfulness, seem at first sight to exclude sinlessness; and because these have
been cited again and again by Ahmadi writers as proof of their contention that Jesus
sinned, we are obliged to examine them briefly here.
There are three incidents, in particular, that are apt to cause difficulty:
1. The Baptism of Jesus.1 The question inevitably suggests itself to the mind—
how could the Saviour of the World submit to a rite which, for all others, amounted to a
confession of sin?
We need to bear in mind, however, that baptism, even for others, was always
more than just that. For all it was an act of self-consecration marking the beginning of a
new epoch; as Paul says:
"We who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death……that as
Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in
newness of life."2
It was this for Jesus, and yet for Him it meant much more.
(I) Among the Jews the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit was the expected
sign of the dawn of the Messianic Age, cp. Joel, 2: 28-29; and it was such an
out-pouring that Jesus experienced, as all the narratives declare.3
(2) For Him the incident signified His consecration to the office of
Messiah; this was part of the "righteousness” He felt Himself under an
obligation to fulfil.4
1
Mk. 1: 4-5, 9; Mt. 3: 13-17.
2
Roms. 6: 3-4.
3
Mk. 1: 10; Mt. 3: 16; Lk. 3: 22; Jo. 1: 32.
4
Mt. 3: 15. cp. A. G. Hogg, Christ’s Message of the Kingdom, p. 153; W. R. Matthews, op. cit., p. 63.
(3) By this act Jesus identified Himself with the human race. cp. "Thus it
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness"; and "it behoved Him in all things to
become like unto His brethren".1 That is to say, He was baptized as "Son of
Man". He stood down with the crowds, identifying Himself with sinful men, yet
remaining Himself "without sin". Shortly afterwards He was sorely tempted to
stand aloof from men, to hold Himself above them as "Son of God". So that He
fulfilled this purpose of the Incarnation—He identified Himself by the act of
baptism with the race of men.2
Nevertheless there was in this act, as He performed it, not the remotest suggestion
that He felt He needed purification, nor yet any confession of sin.
2. The Temptations of Jesus. The main conclusion to be drawn from the Synoptic
writers' accounts of the temptations is that Jesus was really tempted.3 That is the view,
too, of the writer of the Epistle to Hebrews.4
What then are we to infer from this clear statement? Certainly not that He was,
thereby, sinful. For to be tempted is not to incur sin; rather, as James says,—that man is
to be praised who endures temptation and overcomes it.5
Surely the truth is that Jesus could not have been really tempted unless He was
really able, if He chose, to yield. That He never did so choose and never did yield are,
likewise, facts equally well-attested in the gospels. Jesus being man was tempted, but
being the Man He was He did not sin.
1
Mt. 3: 15 and Heb. 2: 17.
2
See Hoskyns and Davey, op. cit., p. 140.
3
Mk. 1: 12-13; Mt. 4: 1-11; Lk. 4: 1-13.
4
2: 18; 4: 15. The concern of the author of the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, seems to be to
present a supernaturally sinless Christ, for no mention is made of this incident.
5
James, 1: 2 and 12.
We see that He was spared no pang, no obstacle. He had to resist temptation by

exercising His strength. Nowhere is this fact more strikingly set forth than in the account
of His ordeal in Gethsemane. He was exceedingly sensitive to the approach of evil, more
so than any other, but His reaction was always a turning away from it. And when it is
recorded of Him that "He was tempted at all points as we are", what is meant is that He
was tempted at all points of His sinless character as we are tempted at all points of our
sinful character. Yet if ever it can be said of anyone, it should be said of Jesus, that there
were certain things He simply could not have done. It has been truly observed that His
will "always showed its strength chiefly in certain splendid incapacities".1
Any other view of His sinlessness would rob His character of all moral
complexion. Certainly He "would not have become a creative moral force in history if at
the age of thirty He had never yet—in things physical as well as spiritual—heard the
tempter's voice".2 As it is, we see that He surmounted all His temptations—that is
something that immensely helps us who also wrestle, and makes true what is recorded of
Him: "for in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that
are tempted".3
3. Yet another difficulty is presented in the remark of Jesus "Why callest thou me
good; none is good save one, even God".4 It is sometimes suggested that we have here
1
Archbishop Temple, C.V., p. 147. cp. H. R. Mackintosh, P.C., p. 413, and Weatherhead, H.L.O., pp.
35-7.
2
Streeter, Reality, p. 192. The same writer says, "It may plausibly be urged that any exhibition of the
will to evil would (in this particular case) be an inconsistency so startling as to be psychologically in-
credible; but can a whole theology be built on the assumption of its impossibility?", p. 190.
3
Heb. 2: 18.
4
Mk. 10: 17.
an avowal of failure, a plain denial of sinlessness. But surely to put such an interpretation
on the words "would make nonsense of the Marcan Gospel. Jesus, according to Mark, is
the Messiah in Whom the Righteousness of God is concretely present in the midst of
Israel."1
The passage really has no bearing whatever on the question of the sinlessness of
Jesus, but indicates that He is anxious to correct this young ruler's idea as to what
constitutes "goodness". For, even though we may agree that the man was sincere, it is
obvious that he had not given due thought to the import of the words he used.
Moreover, Jesus' rejoinder is not merely a declining of the youth's too-glib
tribute—it is that—but a challenge to him to contemplate the Absolute Goodness, an
attribute of God Himself, and then measure himself, and the righteousness he professes,
by that supreme standard. Let him think what Goodness means to God, and then think out
what it must mean to call Jesus "good". Goodness, in its fullest sense, is not human at all,
but an attribute of God alone.
We thus arrive at a thought-provoking conclusion—viz. that only after giving due
consideration to the essential meaning of Goodness and its bearing on the fact of Christ,
is a man in a position to give to Him the praise that is His due. And even then, praise
alone is not enough. Christ asks for, and expects, allegiance also. It was in this that the
ruler signally failed. Like many Muslims, he found it easy to praise Christ, but when
faced with the obligation to follow Him he turned away, unwilling to make the sacrifice.2
1
Hoskyns and Davey, op. cit., pp. 141-2 and 202. Throughout the gospels Jesus presents Himself to us
as an infallible guide, teacher and pattern. There is the challenge always present, if not often expressed—
"Which of you convicteth me of sin?", Jo. 8: 46.
2
It is recorded of Bishop Lefroy of Lahore that he used to stress the word "Why" in the Master's
question, "Why?......what is your reason?......is it to follow Me?”
HE KNEW NO SIN
In conclusion it can be stated without fear of contradiction that there is a total

absence of a consciousness of moral guilt on the part of Jesus in the synoptic records.
Jesus never prayed for forgiveness, yet He asked others to. He expressed no need for
reconciliation with His Father. He had no seasons of self-abasement, born of a sense of
transgression. At each stage "His will was undamaged by the previous admission of sin"
—"there was no enemy of self-will within, and therefore no danger of defeat".1 This is
something that greatly impresses all but the prejudiced reader.
And in Jesus this arresting feature is an essential part of Him; it is not the effect of
pose. He who so severely condemned hypocrisy in others, combined with His own claim
to sinlessness "the possession of a sincerity transparent and undisputed".2 All others, the
world's greatest heroes, are conscious of shortcomings. Even the saint has the sense of
unworthiness, only much more acutely. But in the case of Jesus the serenity of His vision
of God was unclouded. His fellowship with the Father was maintained unbroken in the
face of well-nigh overwhelming temptation. The perfect harmony was never marred, if
we except those few hours of agony on the cross.3
There are those who seek to cast doubt upon the conclusion thus drawn from the
brief records in our possession, by suggesting that we do not really know what transpired
in the
1
Archbishop Temple, op. cit., p. 148.
2
cp. C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Character of Christ, where the author adds: "All history, with the
exception of the Gospel story, justifies us in regarding a claim to sinlessness as inseparably connected with
hypocrisy", pp. 14-15.
3
"From outset to end, no desire, motion, conception or resolve existed in the soul of Jesus, which was
not the affirmation and execution of the will of God dwelling in Him and informing His entire life."
hidden years before the ministry.1 The sufficient answer is that we find no "scars" on
Jesus, detect no regrets and hear no cry of remorse. From this, backed by the whole
narrative, we have the right to conclude that those years corresponded in character to the
brief years of His public ministry. All of it was a close walk with the Father.
In a word, the gospels record of Him no sin, because there was no sin to record.
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Garvie, A. E., Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus, Hodder and Stoughton, 1907.
Robinson, C. H., Studies in the Character of Christ, Longmans, 1907.
Bushnell, H., The Character of Christ.
Streeter, B. H., Reality, Macmillan, 1928.
Sinlessness of Prophets, The Mohammedan Tract Society, Lahore.
Muhammad Ali, Muhammad and Christ.
1
Thus the Mirza of Qadian: "It is a noteworthy fact noted by all critical biographers of Christ that the
writers of the gospels have carefully refrained from making even a passing reference to his earlier years.
But the writers of the gospels have intentionally omitted to give any account of his first thirty years. They
have chosen to start with that moment in his life when he emerged out of the sacred waters of Jordan a
purer and perhaps a better man", Unity versus Trinity, p. 65. This is definitely not true, e.g. we are told that
"the child grew and became strong and full of wisdom, and the grace of God rested upon Him"; and in that
glimpse of Him as a boy of twelve it is recorded that "Jesus increased both in wisdom and in stature, and in
favour with God and man", Lk. 2: 40 and 52.
[Blank Page]
CHAPTER
X
THE RESURRECTION
MUSLIM OBJECTIONS
"The killing of Jesus and his resurrection is not proved even by the gospels."
"When Mary and the disciples did not recognize Jesus, how can it be admitted
that he was Jesus"? (p. 206).
"Jesus has never said in any Gospel that when he will rise again he would change
his countenance."
"If Jesus Christ had given information as to his crucifixion and resurrection to the
disciples, they would have believed the fact at once" (pp. 207-8).
"If, instead of making all this clamour and noise to establish the Divinity of Jesus,
the Christian missionaries had only taken the trouble to prove him a living man, they
could have given satisfaction to many enquirers, and we would have never hesitated to
accept him as such" (Qadiani).
CHAPTER X
THE RESURRECTION
The Resurrection of Christ is not, strictly speaking, an issue with Muslims. The
orthodox, as we have seen, believe that He did not die; so that for them there can be no
question of His having risen again. As for the Ahmadis, they follow the lead of the
founder of their sect, who in order to establish his own claims made it his business to
assert that Jesus is dead. But so far as the Crucifixion is concerned we have noted that he
adopted the baseless theory that Jesus merely swooned on the cross and was revived, only
to die later. In this way he denied also the historicity of the Resurrection.
This double refutation is hailed by the chief of his disciples as one of his greatest
achievements:
"He has broken the cross……because he has shown from the gospels that
the death of Christ did not take place on the cross, as has been wrongly supposed by
Christians for nineteen centuries, but having escaped with wounds he died a natural
death afterwards, having lived to the age of 120 years, as a report expressly says…
…It was ‘through the blood of the cross' (Col. 1: 20) that salvation was purchased;
'and if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain' (I Cor. 15: 14). Christ never
died on the cross and he never rose from the dead; the preaching of the Christian
missionary is therefore vain, and vain is also his faith. The Christian religion laid its
foundation on the death of Christ on the cross and his subsequent rising; both these
statements have been proved to be utterly wrong on the strength of the historical
testimony afforded by the gospels themselves, and with the foundation the whole
superstructure falls to the ground."1
1
Muhammad Ali, op. cit., pp. 158-9.
What are we to think of a writer who is content thus to thrust aside so lightly a
fundamental belief, nineteen hundred years old, on the strength of a "report", concerning
which he gives no particulars? One suspects, however, that he has in mind the story of
Nicolas Notovitch, a Russian traveller to Ladakh in 1887. This interesting person
published a book in which he declared that he had found an ancient manuscript in a
Buddhist temple in Leh which stated that Jesus, in his youth, travelled to India. He
succeeded in deceiving even Renan; but it was proved to the satisfaction of Max Müller
that the report was an impudent lie.1
And why look to Paul for support? No one acquainted with what the Apostle says
at the place cited will be deceived by the partial quotation. Having put the rhetorical
question, Paul proceeds: "But now Christ hath been raised from the dead, the first fruits
of them that sleep". Indeed, in the opening verses of that same chapter, speaking of actual
events, i.e. of "the historical testimony", he uses the phrase, "He appeared", no less than
four times.2
WRESTING THE MEANING OF THE GOSPELS
We can see for ourselves how these new enemies of the Cross of Christ are so
blinded by prejudice that they do not hesitate to twist the clear statements about His death
and
1
The Unknown Life of Christ. Dr. Ahmad Shah shortly afterwards spent a long time in Tibet on
government service and covered the ground over which Notovitch said he had travelled. He has left it on
record that the man was "a Russian spy who was being dogged by the Simla detective police"……
“Mustapha, a Mahomedan gentleman……one of the Leh officials", when asked about Notovitch's alleged
find, exclaimed "Lā haula walā quwwat", an Arabic exclamation of indignation, and declared that though
he had lived there 32 years he had never heard of it. cp. Four Years in Tibet, pp. 14–18.
2
I Cor. 15: 1–20.
THE RESURRECTION 205
resurrection to suit their own desperate hypothesis. In his long note (645) on 4: 156, viz.
the denial that the Jews crucified Jesus, Muhammad Ali advances a number of "proofs"
in support of his contention that Jesus neither died on the cross nor rose from the dead.
We reproduce the following:
When the tomb was seen on the third day the stone was found to have been removed from its
mouth, which would not have been the case if there had been a supernatural rising.
This assumption is not warranted by the facts:—
(a) In the first place there is the fact that the stone was rolled away after Joseph closed the
tomb, and after the seal had been affixed. "This is the clear assertion of the
earliest and of the every record we have."1
(b) A second fact, equally well-attested in the narratives, is that the tomb was empty.
"The documents are adamant upon this fundamental feature of the Eastern
dawn."2 This was something which the High Priests admitted, though they lied as
to its cause: "They gave large money unto the soldiers, saying 'Say ye, his
disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to
the governor's ears, we will persuade him and rid you of care'; so they took the
money and did as they were taught."3
(c) The third and most amazing fact of all is that Jesus definitely "appeared" beyond the
grave, and His rising from the dead was attested by many witnesses. The real
proof of this was something quite independent both of the stone rolled away and
of the empty tomb. "The empty tomb comes before us only as a fact, not as an
argument."4 And we may say the same of the moved stone. When the Apostles
witness to the Resurrection they do not make use of the women's evidence of the
moved stone, nor refer to the fact of the empty tomb. What they
1
Mk. 16: 4; Mt. 28: 2; Lk. 24: 2; Jo. 20: 1.
2
Morison, Who Moved the Stone?, pp. 231, 261, 300.
3
Mt. 28: 11–15; cp. Mk. 16: 6; Lk. 24: 1–6; Jo. 20: 2.
4
Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, p. 144.
stressed was the fact that Jesus had been raised from the dead by the direct hand
of God.1
Mary, when she saw him, took him for the gardener which shows that Jesus had disguised
himself as a gardener.
There was no "disguise"—the very suggestion is another way of imputing deceit to

Jesus—Mary simply did not recognize Him. She was weeping, and altogether lacked the
spirit of expectancy. Besides, Jesus was changed in appearance; He only slowly revealed His
identity by the familiar inflection of His voice.2 Recall how He disclosed His identity to the
two disciples at Emmaus through the familiar way in which He broke bread.3
Such disguise would not have been needed if Jesus had "risen from the dead”.
Again, allowance must be made for His changed appearance; "raised a spiritual
body"; and having "the glory of the celestial".4
It was in the same body of flesh that the disciples saw Jesus and the wounds were still there,
deep enough for a man to thrust his hand in.
Difficult though this subject is we are definitely told that it was not the same body:
Jesus had "another form"; His disciples thought He was "a spirit"; He came through shut
doors.5
He still felt hunger and ate as his disciples did.
Hunger! rather it was a concession to their human frailty, in order to dispel their
terror and doubt.6
He undertook a journey to Galilee with two of his disciples walking side by side with him,
which shows that he was flying for refuge, for if his object had been to rise to heaven
he would not have undertaken a journey to Galilee.7
Flying for refuge, and to Galilee! Why, He was back in Jerusalem that very
night!8
1
Acts, 1: 22; 2: 32; 3: 15; 4: 2; 10: 40.
2
Jo. 20: 11–18.
3
Lk. 24:30–35.
4
I Cor. 15: 35–38.
5
cp. Mk. 16: 12; Lk. 24: 37; Jo. 20: 19.
6
Lk. 24: 37–43.
7
The swoon-theory seems to have been forgotten!
8
Lk. 24: 33–36; that is all he makes of this moving interview which George Eliot declared to be "the
most beautiful story in the world".
In all post-crucifixion appearances Jesus is found concealing and hiding himself as if he

feared being discovered.
On the contrary, to whom would He, to whom should He, show Himself—to foes or
to friends? Consider the wisdom and reasonableness of the Risen Lord's action in the light of
the following statements in Scriptures:
"He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him come
down from the cross, and we will believe on him", Mt. 27: 42—but would they have?
"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise
from the dead", Lk. 16: 31.
"Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto Him, 'Lord, what is come to pass that Thou wilt
manifest Thyself unto us, and not unto the world?' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'If a
man love me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him and we will come unto
him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words", Jo. 14:
22–24.
"Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the
people, but unto those witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat
and drink with Him after He rose from the dead", Acts, 10: 40–42.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION
Thus far we have sought to rebut the assertion that because He had not really died,
Jesus did not really "rise from the dead". But now by way of refuting the contention of
the Ahmadis that "the clear testimony" of the gospels is against the Resurrection, we shall
consider the actual evidence furnished by the records.
Here are the outstanding facts:
I. We have, first, the clear and precise predictions of Jesus Himself that He would
be put to death and rise again.
"He taught His disciples and said unto them, 'The Son of Man is to be delivered up
into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he
shall rise again! But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask Him", Mk. 9:
31-2; Mt. 17: 22-23; Lk. 9: 43–45.
And there is that amazing incident of Peter's protest at Cæsarea Philippi against the
Master's use of such language about His death, and Christ's stern rebuke, "Get thee behind
me, Satan!, for your thoughts are not God's thoughts, but men's", Mk. 8: 27-33.
We have also the disciples' recognition, at last, of the tragic fact that death actually
awaited their Master. It is the scene where Jesus leads the way to Jerusalem and they
themselves follow in trepidation; "And they were in the way, going up to Jerusalem; and
Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed: and they that followed were afraid",
Mk. 10: 32; Mt. 20: 17-19; Lk. 18: 31-33.
Once again, there is that mysterious phrase used by Jesus, "Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up". What called it forth? He had cleansed the temple of the
unholy traffic of the Jews. His eyes blazed in His ‘zeal for God's house', while those of the
Jews smouldered with murderous hate; and as He gazed into their eyes and saw His
impending death, He said, Destroy this temple—and the evangelist adds, "He spake of the
temple of His body", Jo. 2: 13-22.
And yet an Ahmadi writer can say (in seeking to show that Jesus did not die on
the cross) "Jesus never taught his disciples that he would rise from the dead"—actually
quoting in support, Lk. 24: 11, "their words seemed idle tales", and Jo. 20: 9 "as yet they
knew not (i.e. understood not) the Scripture that He must rise again from the dead".1
THE DRAMATIC CHANGE IN THE DISCIPLES
2. We pass on to consider the remarkable change that took place in the outlook of
the disciples. What caused this?
The final scenes of our Lord's life were a series of shattering blows to these men.
Their Master had been betrayed by one, denied by another, deserted by all. His Messianic
claim had been scouted by the Sanhedrin. He had experienced "desertion" by God. They
dwelt on the horror of it—God
1
The Review of Religions (Qadian), Jan. 1933.
had permitted Him to die!, and the shame of it—had left Him to die on a gibbet! Who
were they to let memories of their Master's words and works stand against that sentence
of God? There was nothing left for them now but to go back to their fishing.1
And, in very truth, had the career of the Master ended in that fashion, with the
disciples in that mood, His cause would most certainly have perished. But again, what are
the facts?
It is written plainly for all to see that despair did not finally win the day. The
disciples did not in the end so interpret the cross. "The phenomenon which here con-
fronts us is one of the biggest dislodgments of events in the world's history, and it can
only really be accounted for by an initial impact of colossal drive and power……An
habitual doubter like Thomas, a rather weak fisherman like Peter, a gentle dreamer like
John, a practical tax-gatherer like Matthew, a few seafaring men like Andrew and
Nathaniel, the inevitable women……does this heterogeneous body of simple folk, reeling
under the shock of the crucifixion, the utter degradation and death of their leader, look
like the driving force we require?......Yet the clear evidence of history is that it did."2
We find the disciples proceeding to proclaim Jesus and His resurrection boldly in
Jerusalem itself, the stronghold of His detractors:
"With great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus," Acts, 4: 33.
As the above-quoted writer says, "They brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with
inconceivable audacity into the
1
Jo. 21: 3. For an exposition of this passage, see The Nature of Religious Truth, A. D. Lindsay, pp. 82
ff.
2
Morison, op. cit., pp. 161-2.
most keenly intellectual centre of Judæa, against the ablest dialecticians of the day and in
the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organized camarilla could
devise. And they won!"1
WHAT CAUSED THIS CHANGE?
Now so dramatic a change as this in the once despondent disciples requires a

cause, and an adequate cause. No mere pious wish, nor a dream, far less a lie, will
account for it. What was it? We have it supplied in the disciples' oft-repeated conviction
that their Master had "risen from the dead", that He was alive: and, again, it may be said
that apart from such unshakable conviction Christianity itself would have had, and could
have had, no future.
3. Another fact is that this arresting news that Jesus had risen from the dead
belonged, from the first, to the nucleus of the apostolic message.2 We have the point
stressed in the selection of another to take the place of Judas Iscariot among the twelve.
They required "one who must become a witness with us of His resurrection", Acts, 1: 21-
22.
As instances of the proclamation of this fact in the earliest recorded preaching, we
have Peter standing up with the eleven and saying, while explaining the outpouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost:
"Whom ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay, Him hath God
raised up, having loosed the pangs of death", Acts, 2: 23-4.
Likewise at the Gate Beautiful after the healing of the man born lame, Peter
protests:
"Ye killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we
are witnesses", Acts, 3: 14-15; see also 4: 10 and 33; 5: 30.
1
Morison, op. cit., pp. 179 and 265.
2
cp. Hermann Sasse, Mysterium Christi, p. 94.
4. We turn, next, to a consideration of the dramatic change in Paul, once the bitter
opponent of the Christians. None saw more clearly than this brilliant young Pharisee
whither this new movement must lead if left unchecked, and so he resolved to use all his
God-given powers to stamp it out, by persecuting the humble followers of the despised
Nazarene. He himself was fully aware that this belief in the Resurrection of Jesus
occupied the first place in their faith.
Notwithstanding all this; notwithstanding his first horror, akin to that of the
disciples themselves, at a crucified claimant to the Messianic office, something amazing
happened to him; for he, the proud Pharisee and pitiless persecutor of the new sect,
himself became a convinced follower, an enthusiastic evangelist of this same Jesus.
"Why should a man of this tough breed and of this admittedly sane and virile calibre be
uprooted in an instant from his cherished beliefs and swept like chaff before the wind into
the dogmatic camp of his most hated enemies?......Why was one of the greatest intellects
of the ages brought over and fixed in an instant of time from one pole of dogmatic belief
to another?"1
PAUL LEAVES US IN NO DOUBT
Again, for so dramatic, so unexpected, so apparently impossible a change, we

require an adequate cause. What was it? Paul leaves us in no kind of doubt as to that. It
was the same cause—it was the appearance to him of the Risen Lord, "He appeared to me
also", I Cor. 15: 8.
It is not too much to say that this fact revolutionized Paul's outlook. Henceforth he
was filled with an over-powering conviction that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead:
1
Morison, op. cit., pp. 222 f.; cp. Archbishop Temple, C.V., p. 109, where he speaks of Paul as "a man
of supreme intellectual penetration and grasp".
cp. "That ye may know……the exceeding greatness of His (God's) power to usward
who believe, according to the working of the strength of His might which He
wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and made Him to sit at His
right hand in the heavenly places", Ephes. 1: 19-20.
5. Nor does this exhaust our evidence. Paul tells us that he actually met others
who had seen the Risen Christ. In I Cor. 15: 3-9 he gives a list of the Lord's appearances.
This passage is actually the earliest literary evidence that we have of the event. It was
written about 25 years after Christ's death, but the testimony it records belongs to a
considerably earlier date. In Gal. 1: 18-19 the Apostle mentions how he went up to
Jerusalem three years after his conversion, to visit Peter with whom he spent fifteen
days—Peter, the bold proclaimer of the Resurrection.
We have it also on the testimony of Paul that immediately after the death of Jesus,
Peter, James, and others—once a group numbering "above five hundred"—were
convinced that they had seen the risen Christ. Even so Paul's list is not exhaustive; he
makes no mention of appearances to the women. The reason for this omission seems to
be that he desired to stress the testimony of those who might be called the "official
witnesses", i.e. the disciples who had always been in the company of Jesus.
Sometimes the objection is made that these appearances were merely visions. But
we have no evidence whatever to show that the disciples were expecting Jesus to appear.
On the contrary, Luke explicitly says that when He had talked to them about His
forthcoming death and resurrection they failed to understand Him.1 Further, it is
characteristic of visions of the kind here implied that the object of one's thoughts and
desires appears in familiar form; the person
1
Luke, 18: 31-34.
so seen is at once recognized. But the records tell us again and again that the risen Christ
was not immediately recognized. He was in some way changed, and only revealed His
identity by some characteristic speech or act.
If, on the other hand, we accept the fact of the Resurrection and the empty grave,
"it makes far better history of the whole story than any form of the vision theory. It
makes sense and unity of all the events; it makes the disciples intelligible as human
beings……above all, it makes a unity of the figure of Jesus Christ, and sense of the New
Testament."1
THE EMPTY TOMB
6. Then we have the clear evidence of the empty tomb. There are those who seek
to explain this away; for instance, it has been suggested that the words "He is not here"
(Mt. 28: 6) mean that the body was in another tomb, not the one to which the women
came. But the very precise language in Mark's account, viz. "Mary Magdelene and Mary
the Mother of Joses, noted where he was laid",2 does not permit of such a notion. Besides
which, the complete statement in Matthew's narrative is, "He is not here, because He is
risen, even as He said".
Moreover, as Dr. Cairns pertinently asks in respect of this wild theory, if in some
form the body did not leave the tomb, what became of it?
"We are told that no doubt somehow it was lost. Is it then so easy for a human
body to get lost at any time? How it could get lost in the tempest of love and hate of the
Jerusalem of that day, it passes the wit of man to determine. Was there no Antigone among
all these women to stand by and remember the place of the body of the Lord? Is it likely
that Mary was less loyal to her Son than the Greek maiden to her brother?3 Was
1
Cairns, op. cit., p. 46.
2
Mk. 15: 47.
3
cp. Sophocles' drama, Oedipus Coloneus.
there no Sadducee or Pharisee with sufficient foresight and vigilance to destroy the early
faith at its birth by producing the body? Is that like what we know of Caiaphas?"1
The very insinuation of the Jews that the disciples stole Him away seems rather to
establish the historical reality of the Resurrection, for the disappearance of the body
cannot otherwise be accounted for; while the offering of the bribe would be meaningless
if we are to assume that the soldiers did not know the actual place where the body was
laid.
A moment's reflection should suffice to show that the disciples could not have
faced the authorities with the confidence we know they exhibited, unless they had been
quite sure that the grave was really empty; in other words, that the body had not been just
"lost". Besides, we know that at first even they were reluctant to credit this miracle,
"These words (of the women) appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved
them", Luke, 24: II.
7. Such considerations compel us to take Paul's words at 1 Cor. 15: 35ff., literally,
and at their natural value. The "rising" of which he there speaks is assuredly relative to
the grave and the burial, and if Paul did not have in his mind a bodily resurrection he had
no right at all to speak of any resurrection, not even a "spiritual" one.2
How could Paul, who speaks as he does on the relation between sin and death, on
the body and the spirit, and on the final transformation of the body, have possibly
believed in any theory of our Lord's Resurrection which could dispense with the empty
tomb? We are not here concerned as to whether his ideas were right or wrong, but with a
fact; a fact, made clear from the whole context of his thought as well as from his
phraseology, viz. that at the centre of his faith lay the
1
Cairns, op. cit., p. 45.
2
cp. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, p. 113.
full Easter message and that in this he was at one with the whole New Testament
community. This full faith is the very root of all the optimism we see in the New
Testament.1
TRIUMPHANT JOY
How characteristic of those writings is the exclamation,
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to
His great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead!" I Pet. 1: 3.
In that outburst of praise there is not only profound joy at the realization that the
power of sin has been broken, but also profound relief from the paralysing effects of
human grief and human tragedy. Good has triumphed! God has vindicated His Son! And
this is the glorious GOOD NEWS that has changed the face of the world. Apart from this
proof, the Muslim, nay, mankind itself, has no assurance that men will rise again—Jesus
Christ is "the first fruits of them that are asleep".2
8. Finally, and yet once again, we need to rouse ourselves to realize that we are
dealing with no common incident, but with the most crucial event in history.
The words, the claims, the promises, and the hopes held out by Jesus in His
lifetime, required some confirmation and vindication, and God Himself furnished it—that
is our confident belief—in raising Christ from the dead.3 This was the "sign" given by
God to the disciples in their desperate need. "That Sunday dawned on an empty tomb.
Anything else would have been an anticlimax to the life of Jesus upon earth: nothing else
could account for what was to
1
cp. Cairns, op. cit., pp. 171-2.
2
Cor. 15: 20.
3
cp. Hoskyns and Davey, op. cit., p. 258.
follow."1 Small wonder that the Resurrection became the standing theme with the
Apostles of the "exceeding greatness" of the power of God.2
But in the very nature of the case the historical evidence of that sign—the empty
tomb and the appearances to the disciples, which was given to them and which satisfied
them—cannot be given to us, and cannot, in just the same way, satisfy us. Nevertheless,
God has given to us and to the world another sign for the truth of Christ and Christianity;
and that is, the vindication in history of the claims Jesus made.
These are claims that can be, and have been tested; and both He and His claims
have stood the test—Vicisti Galilæe. "Thou hast triumphed, O Galilæan”!
How are we to account for His triumphs in the lives of men and women all down
the ages, and for His gracious influence and power in our own lives? How, save through
the conviction that He ever lives—that He who once "was dead", is "ALIVE FOR
EVERMORE".3
BOOKS FOR REFERENCE
Morison, F., Who moved the Stone?, Faber, 1930.

Denney, J., Jesus and the Gospel, Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.
Zwemer, S. M., The Glory of the Cross, Marshall Bros.
Notovitch, N., The Unknown Life of Christ, Hutchinson, 1895.
Ahmad Shah, Four years in Tibet, Lazarus, Benares, 1906.
1
Moffat, Jas., Everyman’s Life of Jesus, p. 203.
2
Ephes. 1: 20.
3
Rev. 1: 19.
APPENDIX A (from p. 138)
Other replies of the ‘ulama as to who will be saved:

1. The Musalman is nājī and liable to punishment for his sins. The Brahmin is
nārī, no matter how virtuous a life he may lead, which will all go for naught.
2.Whoever does good will get his reward and whoever does evil will suffer its
consequences, whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Those whose good deeds outweigh
their evil deeds will go to heaven, those whose evil deeds outweigh their good, to hell.
But this rests with God to judge.
3. The Muslim is decidedly a nājī, provided he dies a Muslim, the Brahmin must
have hell as his eternal abode if he dies a kāfir.
4. The Muslim will have salvation, the kāfir, no matter what a blessing his life
may be to his fellow-men, will have no credit for it and must pack [off] to hell.
5. A Muslim however wicked he may be, is assured of salvation. A kāfir may get
the reward of his virtuous life in this worldly life, but in the hereafter he shall have no
share.
6. The Muslim will get to heaven. The kāfir may spend a whole life in doing
good, may worship God the whole night, may spend lacs of rupees in charity but these
will carry no value unless he shall profess faith in Islam. He will live in God's wrath for
ever.
7. Faith is necessary to salvation. There is no salvation for a polytheist. Faith is
the key to salvation and the kāfir does not possess that key. As a man's salvation means
atonement with God, it is inconceivable that this object may be obtained without faith in
God. As a matter of fact, deeds which are not done out of this motive cannot be called
virtue, however virtuous they may look. Such deeds may be due to the desire for
popularity or some other motive and may lead to the attainment of that desire—but not to
God, the real objective of man, his salvation.
8. Both are nārī, the wicked Muslim as well as the virtuous Brahmin, for
salvation depends on faith plus a virtuous life.
9. It has been a moot point which of the two carries more value, faith shorn of life
or life shorn of faith. The consensus of opinion puts the first above the other. Lack of
good life makes one liable to a certain measure of punishment, but lack of faith incurs
eternal torture.
10. A Muslim, however sinful, is not nārī. Mere profession of Islam wards off
hell fire. A kāfir, no matter even if the whole of his life is spent in good deeds, is doomed
to hell fire.
APPENDIX B (from p. 145)
We need not be over-concerned about those who contend that for God to "suffer"
would be dishonourable to Him, for, as Professor H. R. Mackintosh has insisted, "it is
worth saying that love in God must include that element which in experience we denote
as emotion or feeling……There is within Him that which finds us desirable for our own
sake, which thirsts to impart itself and receive back the outflow of our love……For it
(His interest in man) to miss its aim through persistent human rebellion or distrust, results
in His experiencing what we can only call pain and a sense of loss……True, we use such
words……only because we have no better. But they are at least a truer and worthier
account of the Divine Reality than the frigid and vacuous language not seldom held on
this subject. The Father has at times been depicted as inexpressibly superior to all feeling
……But an inescapable choice has to be made here, and men will mark which side we
take. What has been called the impassibility of God is in some of its most characteristic
forms, nothing better than a vestigial relic of paganism." But this does not mean that we
hold that suffering is the predominant note in the life of God. H. R. Mackintosh, The
Christian Apprehension of God, pp. 192-3. cp. J. Baillie, The Place of Jesus Christ in
Modern Christianity, p. 182; Temple, in "Foundations", p. 221; W. R. Matthews, God in
Christian Thought and Experience, pp. 248-9.
APPENDIX C (from p. 190)
Some of the base charges that were brought by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian
against the moral character of Jesus Christ:
He "was addicted to drinking", and "opened the way to excess and wholesale
drunkenness" (through the use of wine at the Last Supper).
He "insulted his mother" (in addressing her as "woman"), and used "vulgar abuse
to the learned priests of the Jews".
He "had free and intimate connections with women of dubious character".
"Some of the ancestors of Jesus were harlots."
He "transgressed many precepts of the Law".
He "intentionally caused wrongful loss to an innocent person by destroying his
property" (the Gadarene swine).
Jesus "practised deceit", and "was enraged with an inanimate object" (a fig-tree).
"Jesus Christ was evil-minded and overbearing. He was the enemy of the
righteous. We cannot call him even a gentleman, much less a prophet."
"It should be remembered that Jesus was a liar."
"He was profoundly disturbed through fear of death."1
1
Extracts from Sinlessness of Prophets, Unity versus Trinity, Zamīma-i-Anjam-i-Atham, Kashtī-i-Nūh,
some of which were cited in the Urdu paper, Zamindar, of 24th November, 1934.
APPENDIX D
The Ahmadis
The founder of the Ahmadi movement, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was born in 1839 at
Qadian, a small town in the north of the Panjab. He had received a good education in Muslim
learning and languages. About 1880 he concluded that he was called of God to a special mission,
and in 1889 openly announced that he was the recipient of divine revelation and that he was
authorized to initiate disciples of his own. From this time he began to expound a series of new
doctrines.
He, too, found much to stimulate his thought and furnish him with material for his
doctrines, in Muslim predictions concerning the Imam-Mahdi, with which he joined Muslim
expectations about the Messiah. The day came when, claiming that the scriptures of Zoroastrians,
Hindus and Buddhists alike prophesied the coming of a great world Teacher, he gave out that the
hopes of the nations were to be fulfilled in himself. He was, further, the mujaddid sent by God for
this century to restore the faith of Islam. He thus professed to be both the promised Messiah (in
spirit, though not in person) and the Mahdi……
Likewise, on the ground that God, at intervals, sends "renewers" of religion, he claimed
that in his capacity of Mahdi no other than Muhammad had made his "second advent". He was, in
fact, "an image of the Holy Prophet". But here, too, a difficulty had to be overcome. In the view
of the orthodox the Mahdi is to be a man of war whose path will be red with the blood of
"unbelievers". The Mirza, on the contrary, professed himself to be a man of peace; accordingly
the jihad he proclaimed, the only kind possible "under existing circumstances", was to be a
spiritual warfare, involving at once loyalty to the British Government and abstention from the
political activities of the All-India Muslim League……The Mirza stirred up much opposition. He
never ceased to upbraid the professional mullas, whom he charged with keeping the common
people in the darkness and bondage of superstition. Nor could he tolerate the rationalists, such as
Sayyid Amir Ali and S. Khuda Bakhsh, who, by tracing some of the elements of the Qur’ān and
Islam to pre-Islamic Arab cults, Judaism and Christianity, had weakened the claim
and authority of the Qur’ān. But in regard to social reforms he sided with the conservatives. He
repudiated the abolition of parda, the veil, and defended the Islamic law of polygamy and
divorce.
Nevertheless, the orthodox party whom he had come to "reform" branded him as heretic,
blasphemer, enemy of the faith, and imposter. He was excommunicated, and he and his followers
were forbidden the use of the ordinary mosques. Subsequently, several Qadian missionaries
suffered the penalty of death for heresy in Afghanistan, three as recently as 1924, on which
occasion orthodox leaders in India sent telegrams to the Amir approving the measures he had
taken in the interests of the faith.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died in I908 and later on a schism took place in the ranks of his
followers, as a result of which a new party came into being which shortly afterwards made
Lahore its headquarters. For the sake of clearness it is as well to speak of the adherents to these
two sections as (1) Qadianis, disciples of the original founder (also called Mirzā'is) and (2)
Ahmadis, members of the Lahore party. Such differentiation is pointed out by the Lahore group.
In answering the inquiry of a recent correspondent about the position of Khwaja Kamal-ud-din,
the following statement was made in the columns of The Light, (August 8, 1931). "A Qadiani is
one who looks upon Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, as a
prophet, and regards all those who do not accept him (as) outside the pale of Islam……He (the
Khwaja) belongs to the Ahmadiyya movement of Lahore, according to which the Holy Prophet
Muhammad was the last Prophet and no prophet can appear after him; which considers everyone
who recites the kalima, whatever school of thought he may belong to, a fellow-brother in
Islam"………………
Both sections of the Ahmadis carry on propaganda work, and have a very active press,
disseminating their views widely in English and Urdu journals.
(From The People of the Mosque, pp. 218-223.)
APPENDIX E
The following questions, among others, were submitted in writing by a Muslim

undergraduate to the author, at the close of a series of semi-private lectures. Copies of the
written answers are appended.
Q. 1. Those who try to bring accusations against Christ deny the Koran and hence
cannot be true Muslims.
A. In so far as you mean those like the Qadianis and Ahmadis, who charge Jesus
with all manner of evil, I agree. My difficulty, however, is that the Qur’ān itself denies
some of the facts of history recorded in the gospels.
Q. 2. Are the metaphysical conceptions of the Trinity easier to understand than
the simple "There is no God but Allah"? You must remember that the Koran was first
sent to the Arabs who were polytheistic, and in view of this "La Ilaha Il-Allah
Muhammad ur-Rasul Allah" is very simple.
A. No, quite obviously any conception of the Trinity is more difficult to
understand than the statement that God is One, and that is why the doctrine is so often
misunderstood and misrepresented. But you would not say that "simple arithmetic" gives
you a means of knowing more, say, than "higher mathematics" does—although the
former is simple and the latter complicated. So in the matter of ultimate truth about
God—the simpler the statement the less adequate it must be. When thinking of Him we
look for something profound, difficult to grasp, and not to be arrived at by human guess-
work. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to understand the metaphysics of this doctrine.
After all, the doctrine of the Unity of God is not a matter of "revelation"—man has
deduced it—some of the noblest minds in Arabia
believed in the Unity of God before the preaching of Islam; think, too, of the Jews
centuries before the coming of Muhammad.
Christians too believe in the Unity of God, but in a Trinitarian form. They do so
because of something that God has done; it is that He has revealed Himself—His
character and His love, in and through Jesus Christ; and that now, through His Holy
Spirit, He operates in the spirits of men, correcting, controlling, constraining and
comforting them.
Q. 3. If Christ, thousands of years ago, died for the sins of the world all Christian
sins are automatically forgiven?
A. Not "thousands of years ago"—say, nearly two thousand years ago. The
answer to your question is—Certainly not! But Christ did willingly go to the death of the
Cross in the faith and hope that thereby He might win us from sin and all its
wretchedness, to a life of righteousness, well-pleasing to God.
Q. 4. Did the generations before Christ that were born before Him have to suffer a
handicap in the forgiveness of sins as compared to those following?
A. If you mean—were penitent sinners denied forgiveness by the God of Mercy
before the days of Christ?—the answer is—No, certainly not. But if you mean—was
there something lacking in the measure of their sense of sin and in their penitence for it? I
should say, Yes.
Q. 5. If we believe in Muhammad more (i.e. than Christ) it is only a natural
weakness because he gave us faith and taught a wild race to worship a Supreme Being
and not wooden idols.
A. I cannot think that in a matter of vital religion it is enough to follow "a natural
weakness". In my own case, I have heard the voice of God Almighty speaking to me
through the Life and Death of Jesus Christ until my sinful heart has melted and I have
responded to that forgiving Love which
APPENDIX E 225
suffered, and yet conquered death. I now love Him, and God through Him, because He
first loved me and gave Himself for me.
Published by the Y.M.C.A. Publishing House, Calcutta, and Printed

by P. Knight, Baptist Mission Press, 41A, Lower Circular Road,
Calcutta.

Christianity Explained To Muslims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christianity Explained To Muslims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christianity Explained To Muslims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.muhammadanism.

"Nothing after all tells in discussion but the positive truth we

Y.M.C.A. PUBLISHING HOUSE

p. 7, 1. 9: for 'Baidhāwi' read ‘Baidāwi,' and so elsewhere.

The corrigenda have been corrected

CHAPTER II. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 37

CHAPTER III. THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 59

CHAPTER IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 85

CHAPTER VI. HOW CHRIST SAVES 125

CHAPTER VII. THE VIRGIN BIRTH 153

CHAPTER VIII. CHRIST'S MIRACLES 173

CHAPTER IX. THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST 189

CHAPTER X. THE RESURRECTION 203

to them, but because of definite requests from several quarters.1

th for ‫ث‬ t for ‫ط‬

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES

SUPPORT FROM THE QUR’ĀN FOR THE SCRIPTURES

1. The Qur’ān declares that

4. Finally, it is stated that the Qur’ān

MEANING OF "CORRUPTION" IN THE QUR’ĀN

We are now in a better position to determine the significance of those other

God, there is the verse of stoning which he refuses to read to thee"

This charge of perversion, or "dislocation," of words is quite general; the actual

THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE NOT AFFECTED

CONFIRMATION BY A MODERN MUSLIM

(e) misinterpreting those passages which are mystical and allegorical.

THE SITUATION IN MUHAMMAD'S DAY

THE CHARGES EXPLAINED

SPECIOUS ARGUMENTS OF THE AHMADIS

"The corruption of the previous books is constantly referred to in the Holy

Again in his note (951) on 7: 156, he declares:

Inasmuch as Christian apologists in the past have frequently cited (rather

With reference to the Maulana's interpretation of the phrase min Kitāb-illāh, it

THE MUSLIM'S DILEMMA

THESE ACCUSATIONS ARE OPPOSED TO REASON

AND CONTRADICTED BY FACT

Furthermore, the evidence of ancient manuscripts, now in our possession and

Evidence from Ancient Manuscripts

1. We actually possess to-day ancient Greek manuscripts of the whole Bible,

3. Finally, we find numerous quotations from the sacred Scriptures in the

NOR HAS THE BIBLE BEEN ABROGATED

"Whatever āyat We cancel or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better or its

This āyat is held to have been cancelled by,

This is held to have been abrogated by,

AHMADI VIEWS OF ABROGATION

This doctrine, however, is extremely distasteful to the modern educated Muslim.

DOES THE QUR’ĀN CONTAIN ALL NECESSARY TEACHING?

BOOKS FOR REFERENCE

Muir, The Coran, S.P.C.K., 1878.

Wherry, Commentary on the Quran, 4 vols. (Trübner), 1882.

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION

Kalām, speech, according to orthodox theologians, is one of the eternal attributes

I. Ilhām, literally "causing to swallow or gulp down", is defined as that form of

The anxiety of Muhammad "that the warning should be given immediately in

The following statement, reasonable enough so far as it goes, alludes to the

"The supernatural state of the Prophet at the time of revelation was

Further, complaint is made that Christian missionaries do not understand the

Similarly Muhammad Ali, commenting on the words,

"And so the Word had breath, and wrought